Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like on behalf of this side of the House to extend our very warm congratulations and best wishes to the hon. the Minister of Immigration on his appointment to this post and to wish him every success in his career as Minister of Immigration. The hon. the Minister is a capable person and I am satisfied that he will pursue the policy which he believes is the right policy for South Africa. He must be very gratified, as we are, to see that the figures for immigration for 1975 have considerably improved. This is something which we have been pressing for many years in this House, namely that South Africa needs the immigrants and that the time has come for raising the target which we should aim at year by year. Originally in terms of the EDP it was felt that in order to maintain a growth rate of 5,75% there should be a minimum immigration figure of about 30 000, rising to 40 000, so that we would be able to cope with the economic development of the country. Although there has been some severe criticism on the other side of the House by some of the leading speakers on that side on this particular subject as to this side of the House wanting to open, as they called it, “the sluice-gates” and to allow people to flow in indiscriminately, I think that not only has the aim we set a year ago of at least 50 000 been realized but I am sure these immigrants will be of great benefit to our economy and to the strength of our country.

It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom and Rhodesia still remain the main source of immigration, together with a very useful inflow from West Germany, the latter instance indicating, I think, the necessity for our obtaining immigrants with a technical background who are required in this country. The year under review has seen the largest inflow from Mozambique that we have yet had. I should like to compliment the Department of Immigration on the very able manner in which they have dealt with the majority of the applications for immigration because most of them were made while the applicants were in the Republic itself. About 80% to 90% of the immigrants had their applications dealt with and processed whilst they were in the Republic. I think that in view of the circumstances that surrounded the entire situation the department deserves to be highly complimented for having achieved this success.

It is also interesting to note that of the 50 000 immigrants who successfully applied to enter the Republic, 11 000 had their applications processed in the Republic. As far as Mozambique is concerned, the number amounted to about 3 500. There were a further 8 500 applicants who also had their applications dealt with in the Republic. Whilst we appreciate the difficulties involved and the additional burden on the department in dealing with applicants whilst they are in the Republic, it is a pity, as has happened in many cases, quite guilelessly, perhaps due to circumstances beyond the control of the department, when applicants have to return to their country of origin in order to make their application, have it processed and then have to return to South Africa, perhaps six months or a year later. I feel that although this figure of 8 500 indicates that consideration is being given to special circumstances, even if it demands additional work or additional staff or additional burdens are placed on the department, every possible care should be taken to ensure that if the applicant whilst in the country is prima facie of the required standard from the point of view of the department to warrant his application being satisfactorily considered, the department should avoid the necessity of the applicant having to return to his country of origin.

Furthermore, in order to illustrate the result of what appears to have been a very much better effort on the part of the Government in this matter, I may mention the net inflow for the year of 40 500 which I think is the largest inflow of immigrants we have had in this country since the present Government came into power. That in itself is already an indication that whilst they are making progress slowly, nevertheless they are beginning to see the light.

One of the advantages that flow from immigration can be better illustrated by a quotation which I should now like to make. I want to quote certain viewpoints that have been expressed by certain authentic sources, one of which states the following—

This is important simply because it is essential for us to train our pool of labour. We can only train any unskilled pool of labour if there are sufficient skilled artisans and other skilled persons in the country under whose wings these trainees can be placed for proper and satisfactory training. We must realize that apart from that particular issue there are other more serious issues that face the country, one of which was referred to by Dr. Robertson, the Director-General of the National Institute for Metallurgy, a very important institute in this country. He says in a report that came out at the end of last year, and I quote—

this was what he envisaged at that stage—

This illustrates immediately the importance of available manpower in only one vital field of the South African economy, namely mining, technological work and metallurgical work. The fact is that we will require 10 000 trained engineers in the next ten years, trained skilled people in this one field alone. This gives us an idea of the vista that this country must have in order to provide for its requirements in the years that lie ahead. Therefore when we propose what we call for a dynamic policy we ask the hon. the Minister to face up to this challenge. If there is to be any dynamism in the approach of the Government in the field of immigration, the hon. the Minister must consult with his colleagues in the Cabinet who are in any way concerned with this particular issue so as to ensure that in so far as his department is concerned, and his administration thereof is concerned, there will be no shortfall in the manpower South Africa will require. We must not be placed in the position of sometimes having to pay unreal wages and use unreal methods which are not appropriate under the circumstances in order to meet the shortfall of skilled people that we need. We may then experience an imbalance in our country in that the Public Service or some other sector of the economy will begin to lose its skilled employees to other sectors of the economy because employers will bid for the services of people because lack of the necessary applicants to fill particular posts. This I believe is a very essential aspect of our economic growth in this country, namely the importance of manpower. As we do not have sufficient people to provide the necessary skilled manpower ourselves, the vastness of the future of our economy and the slower growth in the numbers of the more skilled people in our country proves that we need them from abroad, not only to fill the available posts but to train for the future so that we can eventually reach the stage where we will virtually be producing in manpower to keep pace with the growth of economic wealth in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister can face up to that challenge then I believe that some success will be achieved.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations of the hon. member for Jeppe towards the hon. the Minister who has to appear before the Committee as head of this department for the first time. In congratulating him, we also wish him many years of fruitful service in this particular department and express the confidence that, under his able leadership, this department and its activities will go from strength to strength. When we welcome and congratulate him here, it is perhaps a good thing for us to address a word of special thanks to his illustrious predecessor who is now the Minister of National Education, for the devoted services he rendered to this department over a very long period. I may just remind hon. members that Dr. Koornhof received a special reward abroad about two years ago for the devoted services he had rendered with regard to the assimilation of immigrants in the Republic of South Africa over a period of more than 20 years. When thanking him, we also wish him every success in the department for which he is now responsible.

I do not have much fault to find with the hon. member for Jeppe this morning. He raised a hue and cry about the question of numbers last year. In fact, he was quite critical about the question of numbers last year. In contrast with his previous attitude he was quite appreciative of the department this morning, and he had no choice. When one considers the fact that the immigration rate last year exceeded 50 000 and that the total gain after the deduction of emigrants exceeded 40 000, he had no alternative but to do so.

However, there is one minor issue I want to raise with him in the course of my speech on which I should like him to provide us with greater clarity. Before dealing with that and while this question of numbers is under discussion, it may perhaps be a good thing if we dwell on this matter for a moment. As far as the Government is concerned numbers have never been important. Through all these years the National Party believed that the population should in the first instance be increased through our natural birth rate, and we still adhere to that standpoint. In other words, an increase in population from abroad is a secondary and not a primary issue as far as the Government is concerned. Therefore, immigration is being regarded as supplementary to the natural birthrate, and if we were to rely on immigrants from overseas to boost the natural birthrate, it should take place according to specific requirements which may exist. The strength of a nation does not lie in numbers, but in the quality of its people. As far as we are concerned numbers will always be limited as far as immigrants are concerned because, as I have said, the emphasis should be on quality. For this reason the Government will continue to bring in new citizens who are skilled people and who are acceptable to the community in South Africa. We admit that the immigrant is essential for South Africa, but it is not essential and important as far as the increase in numbers is concerned. The immigrant is important because he is in a position to stabilize the security and to develop our economic and industrial strength in South Africa. As far as this matter is concerned, the attitude of this Government has been quite clear for many years. Since 1915, after the establishment of the National Party, it adopted this standpoint as far as immigration is concerned—

This has been the standpoint and the policy of the National Party for 60 years.

The hon. member for Jeppe referred to numbers this morning and said that it is right that the numbers should be what they are. I cannot but gain the impression that the United Party has become less enthusiastic about numbers as far as immigration is concerned. There is a very good reason for this. Numbers are no longer being overemphasized and the reason for it is obvious. There was a time in the history of the United Party when the Sunday Times was able to write—

That was in 1971. Subsequently we had elections and the immigrants did not vote for the UP. Now one gains the impression that they are less enthusiastic as far as immigration is concerned. The time when Gen. Smuts said that it was his policy that the sluice-gates of South Africa should be thrown open not only for the good ones but for thousands and millions of both good and bad ones so that everyone may come in, is now past as far as the United Party is concerned. However, the UP must tell us this morning why their first speaker did not take up an attitude against the liberal Press in this country, people who are sowing suspicion against the policy of this Government as far as immigration is concerned. The liberal Press says it is time for the department to turn off the taps and not allow so many immigrants to come into the country, and we did not hear one word on the part of the United Party condemning these instructions issued by the liberal Press. Sir, we expect the UP to tell us in the course of this debate that they condemn this sowing of suspicion which is taking place against the immigration policy of the Government at the moment.

However, I also want to deal with the Progressive Party. I have here in my hand the statement of policy of the South African Progressive Reform Party. This policy was expounded by means of a speech made by the leader of the party on 26 July 1975. I presume this is the latest policy of this party. I do not see one single word on immigration in this document on their policy. They do not say they are in favour of it. They do not say whether it is their policy to receive immigrants in this country. No. They join the liberal Press in this country in saying that the stream of immigrants should be condemned, that the taps should be turned off. They do not want people from overseas. They say we should rather give employment opportunities to the Black people of this country. Sir, it is a good thing that we discuss these matters. The National Party has always been consistent in its policy. It does not say one thing today and another the day after as far as this matter is concerned; neither does it have one policy for the rural areas and one policy for the cities. The PRP will have to tell us whether they are in favour of immigration on the present basis and whether they are opposed to it and, if so, what their reasons are. As far as this matter is concerned these two parties stand accused of gambling with the future of the White man in this country and with the economic progress of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to hear the hon. member for Jeppe going back on the attitude he adopted last year as far as immigration is concerned. We know that we have been accused by that side of the House through the years of attracting too few immigrants to South Africa. They accused this side of the House of laying down too high standards, and demanded that we lower our qualifications and even allow unskilled people to come to South Africa. That was the accusation levelled against this side by that side of the House. However, it is a fact that in view of this year’s figures the opposite has been proved. When thinking of the prophets of doom one thinks in the first place of the hon. member for Hillbrow. A year or so ago the hon. member said here that South Africa might just as well be written off as far as immigrants are concerned; the people would not come to this country owing to the image of the National Party and the developments taking place in Africa as well as developments on our borders and in Angola and Mozambique.

The hon. member for South Coast said immigrants would not remain in South Africa, because we are not friendly enough. He told us that he spent a Christmas weekend in Vanderbijlpark and was told in the clubs that the people were unfriendly, that the immigrants were being treated badly and that they would leave South Africa. Well, I do not know what to say when one has to form an opinion on the basis of what one hears in clubs. I do not know with whom one associates there, except with one’s own friends. Therefore, the fault lies with his friends, they are the people who adopted this attitude towards the immigrants. I have been living in Vanderbijlpark for 29 years and we have the most active branch of the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” through which we persuade our immigrants to take part in our national festivals.

And how many of them vote for the National Party?

Almost everyone. Last year we held a hobby show in which all the immigrants participated and which was attended by the Minister of Immigration. No, he should not say that South Africans are unfriendly towards immigrants. The hon. member for Jeppe, who has just resumed his seat, raised a hue and cry last year by saying that 25 000 immigrants per year are insufficient because the EDP lays down that there should be 30 000 per annum. He even mentioned a figure of 50 000. Of course, this year we had the record figure of 50 337 immigrants. What more does the hon. member want? The fact that the UP only allows two speakers to participate in this debate, goes to show that the UP subscribed to the policy of this side of the House. The hon. the Minister and his department can have no better proof of the UP fully subscribing to this policy of ours.

As I have said, we had 50 337 immigrants this year, the highest number since the White man first came to settle in South Africa. The UP always suggests that they had considerable successes in the years during which they were governing this country. However, what was the largest net gain in immigrants they had? They achieved that figure in 1947 when they allowed everyone to come to South Africa. They had 20 900 immigrants during that year. This year we had almost twice that number—a net gain of 44 000. What a tremendous achievement!

We also know that the hon. member for Jeppe tells us year after year that our emigrant figure is too high. He said too many immigrants leave the country later on. However, what do the real figures say? Of the 50 000 immigrants we had this year, we lost 9 845 through emigration.

One of the highest.

One of the highest? It is only 19,5% of the total number of immigrants. The average figure for 1961 to 1974 was 26,5%, while the figure for this year was only 19,5%. This is the second lowest percentage since the establishment of the department in 1961. Even that argument of the hon. member, i.e. that too many people are leaving the country, does not hold water. However, that is the kind of accusation we have from those people.

Let us make an analysis of what the immigrants are worth to South Africa. I think it is worth our while to make such an evaluation. Since the department was established in 1961 up till the present we have had 406 000 immigrants; however, 235 000 of those immigrants were uneconomically active; 171 000 were economically active immigrants. I think we should make a thorough analysis of this matter. Seventy-six thousand of those economically active immigrants were construction workers and factory workers, and by far the majority of them were artisans. I want to state my case conservatively. It costs Iscor R15 500 to train an apprentice over a period of 3½ years, and if we accept that only 50% of those 76 000 people—let us take a figure of 35 000 people—were artisans in the engineering industry, it would have cost our country R540 million in training.

Let us also consider the professional and administrative people among the immigrants. Over that period we have had 48 000 immigrants in that category. I am only referring to the net gain here. If we take into consideration that it costs the person plus/minus R10 000 to complete a five-year course, the training of those 48 000 people would have cost South Africa R480 million. Hon. members should bear in mind that I base my figures on only half the number of construction workers who came to South Africa. Therefore, those construction workers and the professional and administrative people saved South Africa, on the basis of a conservative estimate, more than R10 000 million if one takes into consideration what it costs to train those people. My figures are very conservative, because I was unable to include the remainder of the construction workers in my calculations. This goes to show what immigrants save South Africa in respect of training costs. However, this success was achieved by a small department, a department which only consists of 250 officials. Fifty-four of the officials of the department are serving abroad. On the basis of the present charges it costs almost R200 to bring an immigrant to South Africa, and during the past number of years we have spent at the most R81 million to bring immigrants to South Africa. However, we have to bear in mind that by bringing immigrants to South Africa we have saved more than R1 000 million in respect of training costs. I therefore say that, without lowering the standards and the requirements applicable to the selection of immigrants, we have succeeded in bringing approximately 500 000 people to South Africa. The majority of them were productive immediately. Therefore, we not only had the advantage from the savings effected in respect of training costs, but also on account of the fact that the immigrants were productive immediately. I want to congratulate the department on this achievement and the enormous contribution it has made. This is really an achievement to be proud of, because this was achieved by a department with only 250 officials and with a budget of no more than R12 million.

When one measures this expenditure in terms of the success the immigrants achieved for South Africa, I want to urge our fellow-South Africans to bring our immigrants closer to us. We should make them feel at home in South Africa. What is more: We should help them to settle in South Africa, because we owe it to them. We need their technical know-how.

I want to refute with everything at my disposal that which was said by the hon. member for South Coast. I say we are not unfriendly towards the immigrants. Perhaps it would be better if the hon. member rather confined himself to his own constituency. He should not look at me like a goat standing in a patch of cabbages either. [Interjections.] I really think we need the immigrants. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would not have believed it possible that a debate on immigration could have generated so much noise as we have heard during the last 20 minutes from Government speakers. I do not know whether the earliness of the hour or the lateness of the week has something to do with the excitability which I have heard from my left and right today, but there must be some explanation for it.

The hon. member for Springs is normally quite a reasonable man and I really do not know where he gets all his suspicions about this party and its view on immigration. Of course the PRP stands for immigration. We are in favour of immigration because we know that this country needs all the skills it can possibly get. We know that skilled people who come to this country do not come here to take the work out of other people’s hands or food out of other people’s mouths, but to create additional opportunities. For that reason we will always be in favour of immigration. The hon. member must just put his suspicions aside and accept our policy as it is.

I should like to add the congratulations of those in these benches to the hon. the Minister on his assumption of this portfolio. We wish him well in this very responsible job. Right at the outset I should also like to thank the senior officials from the Secretary downwards for their helpfulness to us as individuals in the representations which we are obliged to make from time to time. We appreciate their help very much indeed and it means a lot to us.

I have a few questions which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first one is that I should like him to tell us something about the criteria on which people are judged fit for permanent residence in this country and particularly in so far as people are concerned who are already here. In other words, I do not have people in mind who are recruited overseas. I ask this because, rightly or wrongly, the criteria or standards seem to me arbitrary and indefinite. I should like to know whether it is true, as I was told by a senior official of the department some time ago, that individuals who are here already and apply for permanent residence are not given permission to stay in this country if the work which they intend undertaking can be done by South Africans. This was said in the case of an expert in the field of television who was brought to this country at considerable expense by private enterprise. After about five or six months he was told that he could not in fact stay. As it happened, this man was allowed to stay after representation had been made at the highest level. It was then that I was told this. I can hardly believe it. There was nothing else against this man except the fact that somebody thought that the work he was doing could be done by a South African. There was no objection to him, but his application was originally turned down. Subsequently the decision was reversed, after representations had been made. That is why I say that there seems to me to be something very arbitrary about this. I cannot believe that this extraordinary action constitutes official policy, but it certainly did in the mind of one individual.

I have another case in mind. There may perhaps be some explanation for it. This is the case of an academic from the University of Rhodesia, who was given a research job by an organization in Johannesburg. The senior officials in the department know about this. He was refused permission to take up permanent residence to the dismay of both parties, that is, the man who wanted to come and his prospective employers, and no reasons were given. I can only assume that there must have been some political considerations, and I must say that if there were these political considerations they were considerations of which the South African employers certainly were not aware. To this day they do not know why the application was refused. One cannot really judge the merits of this case. Again it seems to me that arbitrary criteria are applied.

Then there is another issue I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the delay in the granting of applications for permanent residence. I do not blame the hon. the Minister or his senior officials, but there seems to me to be something wrong with the system. The case I have in mind came up in May last year. The last I heard from the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in office was on 2 December last year. Surely this matter could have been sorted out by now? Perhaps it has been sorted out, I do not know. I certainly have not had any indication of this. I can pass the information on to the Secretary so that he can look into this matter. It seems to me to just fit in with a lot of the other cases that we have. The question here is: On what grounds does the department decide who are fit and who are not fit? I suppose it is inevitable that their criteria should be flexible. They cannot be inflexible. However, there must surely be broad guide-lines. I wish the hon. the Minister would outline them to us.

Then there is another issue on which I should like to have some information. On what basis are prospective immigrants given financial assistance to get here? I notice that nearly R5½ million was paid to bring more than 30 000 immigrants to South Africa. Is there any kind of means test, or do all immigrants receive exactly the same kind of assistance? I think a similar question applies to the subsidizing of the accommodation of newly arrived immigrants in this country. Are they all treated on exactly the same basis? This causes me to ask for some statement on the increase of over R2 million, or nearly 33%, in the provision for assisted passages in this coming year. Does this mean that the department really anticipates a very big rise in the immigration rate? If that is the case, on what grounds is this optimism based? I think it would be interesting to know on what grounds this is based. The hon. member for Jeppe said the 1975 immigration figure of 50 000 is the highest in 20 years. This is a tribute to the department and its officials.

Mr. Chairman, this brings me to another matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. There seems to me to be a great deal of unnecessary overlapping between the Departments of Immigration and of the Interior. All I can say is that it has caused confusion. It causes delay and it causes hardship. I am sure a great deal of this could be avoided if there was less overlapping. I have in mind the case of a family who was shuffled between the Department of the Interior—when it dealt with work permit aspects—and the Department of Immigration, that dealt with the permanent residence aspects. This went on, literally for months. In fact, I believe it has not yet been settled. Is it not so that temporary residence permits are handled by the Department of Interior and that permanent residence permits are being handled by the Department of Immigration? Presumably this makes some kind of sense too, but I really cannot see how.

To add to the confusion, there is of course the question of work permits for prospective immigrants who are waiting to hear the fate of their applications for permanent residence. This again is handled by the Department of the Interior. I cannot see that it makes for simplicity or speed at handling, and I can honestly say, from my own experience, that it causes a great deal of hardship and a great deal of confusion to people. One can imagine the delay as advice moves—fairly deliberately, I could imagine—from one State department to another. Inevitably, such delays, as I have said, cause confusion and hardship to the point of exasperation. I wonder how many people ultimately give up hope of trying to get some kind of decision? I fail to see why a better system cannot be devised and why a good deal of overlapping and—as it seems to me—duplication, could not be avoided.

In the one final minute that is left to me, there is still a question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. That is whether the Department of Immigration is making any special effort to recruit teachers, in particular maths and science teachers, in England. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that his predecessor in this debate last year gave me to understand that he was interested in this and he said subsequently, in his new capacity as Minister of National Education, that he was attending to this matter. Is there any special recruiting of such teachers, specialized teachers? If not, has the hon. the Minister any intention of doing so? Does he agree that there is a tremendous need for teachers in these specialized fields? We know that such teachers are available in England in large numbers. There seems to me to be a golden opportunity of bringing them here in order to provide for a real need in this country, seeing that they are available. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown has put several questions to the hon. the Minister. I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to answer those questions thoroughly. However, I want to say briefly to the hon. member that the questions which he put here are all questions to which he could have found the answers very easily if he had simply approached the department about them. Then he would have discovered precisely what the standards are which are laid down, what the correct procedure is which is followed, etc. After all, there is a correct procedure which must be followed by people who want to immigrate to this country. The Government would never make use of wrong procedures, after all. I am sure that there is absolutely no question of arbitrary action.

Since the time at my disposal does not allow me to pay further attention to this, I shall leave it at that. I should also like to make use of the opportunity to convey my congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his accession to his new office. I should like to associate myself with what has already been said by previous speakers. Furthermore, I also want to express my thanks towards the former hon. Minister for the gigantic task which he accomplished during his term. In addition, I also wish to thank the Secretary and the department very sincerely for the excellent work which they did in dealing with the thousands of Angolan refugees who came to South Africa. Time does not allow me to digress on this. We who were there, and who saw what was done, realize what an immense task rested on the shoulders of the officials there. We also took note of the fine spirit of co-operation which prevailed there between the Department of Immigration and the other Government departments concerned with the matter. I want to congratulate them and ensure them that everyone in South Africa appreciates it. It was the best proof of how a civilized country acts towards people who are in distress.

The Department of Immigration has a very successful year behind it. This being the case, there is one matter which stands out very clearly above everything else to me. This is what I should like to underline today. I am referring to the important task of assimilation. We choose the best immigrants and persuade them to come to South Africa, but what do we do with them? To me, one of the most important issues of today is the investigation and assimilation of our new South Africans. Because of this, the task of our voluntary assimilation organizations is now more important than ever before. In this connection I am thinking, for example, of the MEI and the 1820 Memorial Settlers Association. The work of these people has not abated. Their work is becoming more important than ever before in order to meet the need. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for us to think seriously, at the next budget, of considerably increasing the contributions which are made by the Government to these organizations, in order to enable these people to do the work better and to deal more effectively with its greater volume. I wish I had more time, because then I would have taken this argument further.

However, the integration must not be limited to the voluntary organizations. We in South Africa will have to realize that the task of integration is not only the task of these organizations, but that everyone of us in this country has a contribution to make. Once again today I want to address a plea to our people, to one and all. I want to address a plea to my fellow Afrikaners and fellow Nationalists to become more involved in the process of integration of the new South Africans. We are too inclined to push the immigrants aside and keep them aside. In my opinion, we have a very great task in this connection.

I want to isolate and discuss one of the processes of integration for a few moments. I am referring to voluntary military service. The question of military service for immigrants and their children is a matter which is very much under discussion these days. Some people go so far as to demand that immigrants should do compulsory military service. In this connection I should like to say today that we must build up a strong defence force in South Africa. We need a strong defence force because we have to maintain what we have built up over the years. One important requirement for this is a strong defence force. I want to point out that our new South Africans also have a special duty in this connection. They must participate in the defence of our country. If one lives in South Africa permanently and enjoys the rights and privileges of the country, then one has a serious duty resting upon one’s shoulders. The defence force needs all those who mean well by South Africa—the sons of the new South Africans as well. The law is very clear on this point. The law provides that White males who are not citizens of the Republic of South Africa, but who have been permanently resident in the country for at least five years, are required to register for national service as soon as they reach their sixteenth year and provided that they are not older than 25 years when they achieve the five-year qualification. Non-citizens who have registered accordingly are called up for national service on the same basis as our sons, unless they indicated in writing at the time of their registration that they did not intend to take out citizenship. The law gives the young immigrant the opportunity to do his duty. Apart from the provision which the law makes, I should like to address a serious plea to those who are living in the country permanently to come forward and present themselves on a voluntary basis—and I want to emphasize the word “voluntary”—for their military service, and to savour the satisfaction which it gives one. I should like to quote what Gen. Le Grange said recently at a function for the assimilation of immigrants—

Voluntary military service can do more than anything else to integrate the new South Africans into their new fatherland. I cannot imagine any better situation than in the training camp or on the border. There the phantoms fade away and one is faced with the realities of this country and its people. There, in the face of danger and under an open South African sky, a sense of brotherhood is born and one’s roots grow deep into this country, because there one has the feeling of true patriotism. Our sons who are called up for military service return and want to know what the position is in respect of the other people who also enjoy this country and its privileges. This causes dissension amongst our people and it is not always easy to answer those questions. It is also detrimental to the relationship between us and the immigrants. I therefore ask for greater involvement on the part of our young immigrants in respect of military training. I should like to make it very clear that I am definitely not making a plea for compulsory military training for these people. There are many good reasons why we should not force the new South Africans. We are looking for immigrants for this country because we need them here in order to combat the shortage in the labour sphere. To force military service upon these people would be wrong, because they would leave the country, or they would change their mind and no longer come here. It is not our intention to frighten these people off. A second reason is that it costs the Government a great deal of money to give a boy his military training and we cannot afford to spend large amounts of money if we know that those people are not going to remain here if they can be called up. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, last year during the discussion of the “Immigration” Vote, I delivered a plea for the maximum amount paid by the department in respect of the passage costs of immigrants to be increased in view of the fact that air and sea tariffs had increased considerably over the years. The amount which the Government paid was pegged at R200, and I am grateful to see this year that the amount has been increased to a maximum of R275. I want to thank the department and the hon. the Minister concerned most sincerely for having adjusted this matter.

The hon. member for Kempton Park spoke about the need to assimilate the immigrant. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member said and take the matter a little further by referring to what we stand to gain; in other words, that which is a hidden asset in the process of assimilating the immigrant properly in our ranks. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the measurable assets, those which can be measured in terms of rands and cents, but I want to refer to the immeasurable assets; i.e. those which cannot be measured in terms of rands and cents.

Basically, a sound immigration policy has an economic premiss. The economic and labour objectives of the Republic determine the necessity, quality and number of immigrants we are to obtain. Our economic expansion and international political developments for us to rely on our own resources to an increasing extent, but the shortage of manpower and entreprenerial talent has to be supplemented by means of immigration. Dr. T. F. Muller, the chairman of Iscor, recently said that if the stream of immigrants was cut off, the country’s economy would develop so slowly that all South Africans, regardless of race or colour, would suffer as a result. In other words, immigration provides a high percentage of South Africa’s annual manpower intake. Without this addition we shall never be able to effect the necessary expansion. One thinks of the new steel works of Iscor at Newcastle and the large-scale extensions to the Vanderbijlpark steel works, merely by way of using Iscor as an example. These extensions which are of cardinal importance to South Africa, would simply not have been possible without highly skilled people from other countries who had come to settle here.

There is therefore no doubt that immigration has become a permanent part of the South African economy as a measure for supplementing our own increase as far as skilled manpower is concerned. At the same time it emphasizes the need for more attention to be paid to the complete assimilation of immigrants, not only because immigrants are economic assets to our country, but also because they are social and cultural assets to us.

Throughout the world propaganda is being made against South Africa for the very reason of discouraging emigration to South Africa. Even the UNO does not leave itself uncommitted in this regard. Therefore those who come to South Africa in spite of such anti-South African propaganda, deserve to be treated with greater appreciation by us as South Africans. We ought to make it our duty to undertake the process of South Africanization with more purposefulness in order to obtain the maximum advantage for South Africa in this way. I am saying this because other considerations have contributed towards causing these people to choose South Africa as their new fatherland.

It is interesting to note that Mr. H. A. van Luijk of the Dutch emigration service pointed out, according to the 1973-’74 annual report of the MEI, that the motivation to emigrate had undergone a considerable change amongst the Dutch during the past 30 years. He alleges that the most important motivation for emigration immediately after the Second World War was of an economic nature. The Dutch who emigrated during the past few years, however, did so for completely different motives, according to Mr. Van Liujk. He says that economic considerations are no longer the most important motivation. There are other matters which play a decisive role in taking the decision to emigrate. For example many of the Dutch feel weighed down by conditions in their motherland and many are quite convinced that they will hardly be able to achieve what they would like to achieve and which they consider themselves qualified to achieve in the Netherlands, and many even object to the regimentation of life in the Netherlands. He also alleges that the pollution of the environment, the latest oil shortage, the assurance of a better future for their children and the spiritual degeneration in the Netherlands, are factors which have been playing a role in recent times in the matter of taking a decision to emigrate.

It is true that many people have a prejudice against immigration, possibly because of the idiom: Unknown, unloved. It is the duty of every South African, however, to dispel any climate which may exist in South Africa against immigration and, in so doing, to remove all traces of antipathy towards immigrants. This type of action is very necessary, inter alia, because the social and cultural assimilation of immigrants may uncover a source of great riches for our fatherland which must be utilized to great advantage of the two main streams of culture in South Africa at all costs.

Usually an immigrant comes from a country with a homogenous population. He may be English, German, French or whatever. His own identity has always been something to be taken for granted. However, as soon as he finds himself amongst us, he is in a country with a heterogeneous population where the maintenance of a person’s own identity is strongly emphasized. So in South Africa he suddenly finds himself contrasted to other cultural entities in the country. With his heightened awareness of identity he comes into contact with the Afrikaner’s particular feeling of identity as well as with that of the English-language cultural world in South Africa. In future his own cultural potential is going to be directed either inwardly or to one of the two main cultural groups in South Africa, depending on the way he is treated and drawn closer by South Africans. In a very informative speech to the National Congress of the MEI last year in November, Prof. J. P. de Lange, the vice-principal of the RAU, said, inter alia, the following on this matter—

By showing ordinary friendship and elementary love, by accepting the immigrant as he is, and by showing interest in one’s fellow-man without compulsion or obtrusiveness, we can assimilate the immigrant and his cultural riches with our own to have a stimulating and enriching effect on our own cultural heritage. This can only be to the great advantage of South Africa and to the welfare of all its inhabitants. No one has ever been able to calculate, or has ever calculated, the value of the cultural asset the immigrant has been to South Africa over the years. Therefore every citizen in South Africa has a bounden duty in this respect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by protesting against the remark made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, that only two members on this side of the House were speaking in this debate. I wonder whether he remembers that this is something which has been arranged between the Whips. This was in fact done so that we could have more time for the debate on the Coloured Relations Vote. I really pity the hon. the Minister. I am sure that he is going to need all the luck in the world if this is the type of supporter he has. The hon. member spoke of the volte-face which the UP had made in regard to its policy on immigration, but he reminded me of the television programme “Salto Mortale” today, because he turned about so frequently. I wonder whether he knows what he said today. [Interjections.] Something else which has struck me is that the hon. member for Kempton Park seems to know much more than that hon. member about what the members of the clubs in Vanderbijlpark say. Perhaps he is much more welcome there.

Sir, I also want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Springs. He spoke of selective immigration and said that we had never been in favour of it. I wonder where he gets that idea from. It has been the policy of the UP from the start, and there is no need to restate it now. He went on to say that our attitude to immigration had suddenly cooled. What makes him say that? I cannot understand it. He also asked what we had to say about the liberal Press. I do not know whether he was speaking of Rapport or of Beeld. [Interjections.] I have a cutting from a magazine here. It comes from the Financial Mail, and I do not know whether this is a liberal magazine. I shall refer to it in the course of my speech.

†Mr. Chairman, we in the UP never expected to see the day when this Government would be criticized for bringing in too many immigrants. This has now actually happened, because in this article in the Financial Mail the Government is criticized for bringing in too many immigrants in 1975. The Smuts Government was always criticized for this sort of thing, but the Nationalist Government never. I cannot understand how this comes about, and that is why I am taking the trouble to comment on this article. When one first reads the article, one tends to dismiss this criticism as the squeals of the White workers in South Africa, because that is the sort of thing one gets from trade unions. They object to immigrants coming in because they are afraid that their jobs are going to be taken away from them by the immigrants. This is, however, not necessary, because we know that the policy of job reservation protects the White workers in South Africa.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who spoke about me looking at him like a goat, must listen to me with his sheep’s eyes, because in the very clubs he is talking about, this is the biggest complaint against the Government’s immigration policy. The complaint is directed against the type of immigrant that is coming in. Wherever you go in the Transvaal you hear complaints about the Portuguese immigrants. I have nothing against the Portuguese, but the point is that although the immigration figures were boosted during the last year, this was actually in the nature of a windfall. The Government got a net gain of 3 800 Portuguese last year, through no fault of their own. The big criticism, in the Transvaal particularly, relates to the type of Portuguese immigrant that has been allowed to stay in South Africa. They may be qualified tradesmen; I do not know, and I am not criticizing that, but the point is that they do not remain qualified tradesmen for very long. The next thing one finds is that they are greengrocers and shopkeepers and all sorts of things, and the people say that they are “diddling” them left, right and centre. They complain about this type of immigrant. There have also been complaints about the fact that the children of these immigrants are overcrowding the schools in the Transvaal. In addition, they complain that these people are not serving in the Army. They come to South Africa and reap the riches of this country and live on the fat of the land, but when it comes to doing their national duty, they are very slow in coming forward. These are the criticisms one hears. If the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has not heard them, it is only because he never goes amongst his constituents. He probably mixes only with the managers of the steel works.

This article in the Financial Mail claims, first of all, that the immigration figures for last year were the highest in history, in the history of the Nationalist Party at any rate. They beat their 1966 record. It also states, however, that the rate of emigration has increased as well. The number of people leaving South Africa has increased. This is something of which no notice is taken, and which is most disturbing. I am sure that last year’s record of the number of immigrants, the number of people leaving South Africa, is going to be beaten this year because of Soweto. [Interjections.]

According to the EDP of 1974, we need a net immigration figure of 30 000 people per year to maintain an economic growth rate of 6,4%. The Financial Mail goes on to make two very strange statements. It says that if the number of immigrants per year should exceed 30 000, we need not train the 12 000 Blacks who are needed to maintain this EDP rate of 6,4%. It also states that if the immigration figure exceeds 30 000 and we do train 12 000 Blacks, it will cause unemployment, because there will be far too many trained and skilled men in South Africa. Or the economic growth rate must go higher than 6,4%, as if this is a terrible thing and something to be afraid of. This is complete rubbish. If the rate goes up it is only to the benefit of South Africa. They of course say that it is quite unlikely to go up because of the uncertainty of the gold price.

I do not agree with this at all. To support their argument they say that the manpower survey by the Department of Labour shows that there has been a dramatic drop in the number of tradesmen and apprentices that are now being sought for employment. Sir, this is only natural. I do not see how they can make such a fallacious statement. In a time of economic regression of course there is going to be a drop in the need for trained men. There will be a rise in unemployment among tradesmen and apprentices but we know this situation is purely temporary. Then they suggest that all immigration should be stopped except in the case of highly skilled persons who cannot be trained locally, and that the demand by industries for skilled workers should be met almost completely by local labour which they say is available. They ask why we bring in a carpenter from Scotland when there are thousands in Soweto who would jump at the opportunity to be trained for the job. Sir, what nonsense. Who is going to train them, and how long will it take to train a Black man to do a skilled carpenter’s work? Look at the time that is lost. What is the cost of training a skilled tradesman as compared with bringing in a skilled immigrant? This argument is so much nonsense that it is not even worth referring to. Furthermore, who trains the Black man? After all, you need a skilled tradesman to make tradesmen. You need teachers but you also need trained instructors. If we say that immigrants cannot be used to train tradesmen …

With whom are you actually quarrelling?

With your member who accused us of having performed a volte-face. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast made a few remarks here to which one definitely has to react. It is a pity that he spoke about the number of people whom he is concerned would be leaving now just as the people had left South Africa after Sharpeville. Sir, all I can say to them is: Pack your bags and go, Joe, if you do not want to stay here. The sooner they leave the better for us. The hon. member for South Coast also refered to the policy of the UP. I have great respect for his age and he can still remember what his father told him, but I cannot remember what my grandfather told me about the immigration policy of the United Party. The hon. the Minister cannot say it now, but I shall say it on his behalf, that the hon. members for South Coast and Parktown made one mistake in their lives and that was when they emigrated from the Free State.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said. He mentioned the actual gains of the department over the past 14 years. Just as a background upon which I want to develop my argument, I want to indicate the number of people who emigrated from 1961 to 1975. We shall see that 227 436 economically active people entered the country during that period but together with them 316 267 uneconomic people entered the country, giving a total of 543 703 immigrants over a period of 14 or 15 years. To this I should like to add the thought that after a period such as this we should take stock in one or other way and make a summary or survey of what became of these people, and for that reason I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that this task of making a survey of what happened to these people, those who entered our economy, should be entrusted to some university or other body. Did they have an influence upon the economic activities of the country? What happened to the immigrants who were not economically active? How did they adapt to the social structure of the country and how did they adapt to the culture of this country? How did they fit in with the political set-up of the country? We have figures which indicate how many of them accepted citizenship—an insignificant number—but did these people have an influence upon the structure of our national life and, if so, to what extent? Answers to these questions ought to give us a very informative indication of what is happening to our immigrants, and half a million of them have come here over a period of time.

A great deal has been said about the assimilation of immigrants. However, how did these people become integrated into the family composition of this country and how many of them married South African citizens? These are aspects of which we have to take note. What effect had immigrants had upon the criminal element in our society? One often reads in the newspapers about Germans or Englishmen who are in tried in court here, but one is not sure to what extent the immigrants really have an influence on the criminal element in our community. One only has isolated cases which receive a great deal of publicity in the newspapers.

Of course a great deal of ignorance still prevails among the public concerning immigration. The members of the public still confuse the immigrant who is brought here by the Department of Immigration with a temporary visitor or contract worker who comes here to accomplish a certain task and then returns to his country again. The result is that among the members of the public there is more suspicion concerning immigrants than there really should be, precisely because the visitor, the guest and the temporary worker are all incorrectly considered as immigrants, while they are in reality not immigrants.

When visitors from other countries visit their family in this country, they are often so impressed that they also want to immigrate here. Unfortunately we find that these people, while they are still here, try to make arrangements accordingly through the Department of Immigration, but then they are unable to do so. They then go to lawyers and other bodies or persons who manage their business. Unfortunately we then have a considerable amount of exploitation. For example, someone told me that he had to pay a lawyer R400 to handle his immigration form. The lawyer alleged that he would perhaps be able to do it. These ignorant people are often exploited in this manner.

Finally, I just want to raise a number of ideas. I should like to intercede for a certain group of people who, in my opinion, are becoming good citizens of this country, and here I am referring to the Croats. The Croats are Yugoslavians who, like the Hungarians, fled from their country as a result of communist suppression. Thousands of them fled to Australia, America and other countries and a few of them also came to this country. These people are doing excellent work and have assimilated completely. Just to mention an example: On one occasion they collected R1 500 among themselves in a short period and donated it to the Police Orphans Fund. It is these little things which make one think that such people do not simply want to take advantage of our country economically, but really accept the country as their fatherland. If at all possible, we must make room in our country for people such as these if they qualify to come here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brentwood raised several stimulating ideas and I should like to react to a few of them. On the other hand, the Opposition was so confused that I do not have the ability to discuss their point of view.

In the first place I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister heartily on the acceptance of this important department and express my thanks to his staff who fulfilled such an important function and accomplished their task so effectively. In passing I should also like to convey my thanks to the Department of Tourism and Information for what they do in connection with immigration. As far as South Africa is concerned, it is of great importance that we should obtain immigrants—the right kind of immigrants—and in my opinion, every person and department who is concerned with this matter, deserves our thanks.

Various hon. members referred to the work done by the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” and 1820 Settlers. I note that in spite of the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves, the funds allotted to the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” have been increased, while the appropriation for the 1820 Settlers remains the same. Of course, I regret that the funds appropriated for the latter organization, could not have been increased as well. In my opinion, the total amount of R200 000 which is provided to the two organizations, is not nearly sufficient with a view to the approximately 50 000 immigrants we obtained last year. I wonder whether, taking into consideration the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the time has not come for these two organizations to amalgamate and to join forces. The available funds are limited and I think they can be applied much more effectively if the two organizations worked together. In any event, this will not mean that the responsibility which we as South Africans have towards the immigrants, will decrease.

I realize that it is absolutely essential to have very high standards as far as the selection of immigrants is concerned—indeed a very high standard is maintained—but I nevertheless wonder whether we cannot shift the emphasis a little. Is it really necessary for us to lay down the present academic and language requirements? I ask this particularly in the light of the immense economic development which we are facing. Should we not, when we can obtain technically skilled people, shift the emphasis a little? This is the class of person we will need very much both now and in the future.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out that until recently 84% of the immigrants who came to this country came here for economic reasons. If we can keep these immigrants happy in the economic sphere, we will ensure that there will be happy immigrant children. While we all admit that it is very difficult for any immigrant to become assimilated in a foreign country, especially in a country like South Africa with its complex problems, problems which do not exist anywhere else in the world, I think that it is actually the child who is valuable to us.

However, we must also pay attention to the fact that we must not be too one-sided in our selection of the immigrant. We often have the idea that these people flee from another country to better economic circumstances, better housing, better climate, etc., and that it is easy for them to leave their homes. I can imagine that it must be one of the most difficult decisions one can take during one’s whole life, to leave one’s own country and surroundings, except under extraordinary circumstances like times of war, and to settle in a new country and become assimilated there. I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Brentwood said about the value these new immigrants have for South Africa.

On a personal level I want to say that we unfortunately lost our mother at a very early stage of our lives. We then had a Dutch immigrant as step-mother, a person for whom we do not only have a high respect, but also a great deal of personal love. For this reason it is perhaps easy for me to see what these immigrants may really mean to us. She came to South Africa just after the last World War and was extremely liberal of disposition. She was antagonistic towards the Afrikaans-speaking people, but she gradually became attached to South Africa and became a citizen who does not only participate in cultural life, but also contributes her full share as a citizen of the country. Recently she had the opportunity to make an investment and decided that since it had been announced that defence bonds will be issued, she would rather wait until she could invest in them. She represents a large sector of immigrants. However, what is most important to me is that she went back to Holland regularly to visit her friends and her fatherland, but eventually ceased doing so. Instead of going to Holland herself now, she uses the money to bring some of her Dutch friends to South Africa. Some of them have already emigrated to South Africa.

I have several of these immigrants in my constituency, and through them we have also attracted other immigrants to South Africa. In respect of the Dutch in particular, there is one great problem, and this is that when these people leave Holland, they think that they are coming to another Holland where Dutch is also spoken. We as Afrikaners think that the Dutch can speak Afrikaans and that we shall understand one another, but it is sometimes more difficult for an Afrikaner to understand a Dutchman than any other person. This creates problems and friction between them and us. I think that when the Department of Immigration recruits its immigrants, in Holland in particular, it should perhaps give a little more attention to this aspect and make it quite clear to these people that when they come to South Africa they might perhaps be able to adapt to the English language better than to the Afrikaans language owing to their circumstances in Holland and that they must prepare themselves for such an eventuality. This will eliminate many personality problems and enable them to become happy citizens of South Africa far more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to express my sincere thanks to my predecessor in this office. He is a great authority on immigration and when he was Minister, his dynamic personality enabled him to inspire this department to great achievements. In actual fact, the success we are contemplating here today—the success which the Department of Immigration can contemplate with pride—is not due to me, but to my predecessor and to an extremely competent departmental head and a department which gives him its loyal assistance. To my predecessor and my department I express my sincere thanks for their great achievements. Furthermore, to all hon. members who have welcomed me to my new office, I want to convey my heartfelt thanks for their kind words of welcome. I want to express a special word of thanks to the hon. member for Springs, who is the chairman of the Immigration group on this side of the House, and also to the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Parktown for their kind words of welcome.

I have been kindly requested to be brief in my remarks. I had intended to give a fairly wide exposition of my philosophy in regard to my department. However, I shall not be able to do this because I want to comply with the request which has been made to me. It is with a feeling of pride that I want to record once again some particulars concerning my department. The year 1975 was a record year as far as immigration is concerned. During the calendar year, 50 337 immigrants entered the country, while only 9 845 emigrants left the country during the same period. So the number of emigrants constituted 19,5% of the number of immigrants. If one compares this to the ratio between 1961 and 1975, which was 25,2%, one realizes that the latest figure is a very encouraging one, especially if one bears in mind that since September last year—during our involvement in Angola—there have been all kinds of rumours about people who were leaving the country in panic.

The figures available to us so far this year—these are the figures for the period from January to March this year—are also good. During that period, 13 715 immigrants came to South Africa, while 2 717 people left the country permanently. Therefore the gain in immigrants over that period was 10 998. This is a fine figure.

Since there has been a good deal of unfair reporting in connection with unemployment which is allegedly caused by immigration, I want to dwell briefly on this matter before replying to questions asked by individual hon. members. Because it would not be fair of me to make very controversial statements, being the last speaker on this matter, I shall try to state the matter as objectively as possible. During March and April this year there was a flood of panic reports in newspapers; reports which said, in effect, that there was considerable unemployment and threatening unemployment, especially in the building industry.

It is the primary task of the Department of Immigration to bring skilled workers, especially skilled building workers, to South Africa. It is also the primary task of the Department of Immigration to investigate the possibility of the employment of artisans. From the nature of the case, it would be contravening section 4(3) of the Aliens Act if it were to act in conflict with this, i.e. if it were to bring large numbers of skilled artisans to this country while there was in fact an oversupply of artisans in the country.

I want to state categorically that the department keeps a close check on the situation from time to time, that it contacts all the parties in these industries from time to time and that it definitely does not have any problems in placing immigrant workers. In fact, I may mention one body with which we are in constant contact in connection with the building industry, i.e. the Building Industry Federation of South Africa. This federation has specifically requested us to proceed, as in the past, with our attempts to import skilled building artisans. We must remember that superficially it may seem to us that we are experiencing a period of recession, a recession which, as I have said, is not preventing us from placing the people. We may be having a superficial recession, but the department must bear in mind at all times that there may be a sudden upswing in the economy and that we should then be criticized for having been caught unawares and not having ensured in time that enough people were attracted. Moreover, the general unemployment figure for Whites, Coloured people and Asians is only 0,6% of the economically active population in these groups at the moment. In my opinion this is an effective reply to the criticism in this connection. I want to read to hon. members a telex message which my department has just received—

I think that with these few words I have dealt effectively with sensational reports intimating that we are importing immigrants who will deprive the local people of their livelihood. In my reply to the hon. member for South Coast I may give further attention to this aspect.

†I have already thanked the hon. member for Jeppe for his sincere welcome of me into this portfolio. As far as the needs in the mining and metallurgical fields are concerned, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the department will try its best to meet this challenge, as this is a very important field of our economy. The hon. member also mentioned the problem of persons who are inside the Republic by virtue of temporary permits and say that they experience problems when their temporary permits expire, pending their application for permanent residence. The position is that the Aliens Act provides that the Immigration Selection Board may consider applications in respect of persons who are in possession of valid temporary permits, allowing them to sojourn temporarily in the Republic. The issue of such temporary permits rests with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Immigration cannot intervene when temporary permits have elapsed and where such aliens are not successful in renewing or obtaining a permit. Therefore, this is a matter entirely in the hands of the Department of the Interior.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Springs for having given such an effective and lucid explanation of the immigration policy of the NP. I also thank him for the kind words he addressed to me and for the services he renders to this side of the House as chairman of our Immigration group. The hon. member is a great authority on immigration, and as such he renders a great service to this House and to the country.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark—the hon. flamboyant member, I might almost say—has the ability to enliven a debate, no matter what the subject. I want to thank the hon. member for what he and his people are doing on a local level in respect of the assimilation of immigrants. The hon. member also referred to what immigrants were saving the country. In this connection I want to subscribe to the hon. member’s words by quoting from the Quarterly Economic and Market Appraisal of the Hill Samuel group. In their publication for October 1975 they say the following, amongst other things, about the saving effected by immigrants—

The hon. member for Parktown raised quite a number of questions and I shall try to reply to them.

†As far as the increase in the provision for assisted passage is concerned, that is due, in the first place to increased air tariffs. As a result of this the maximum Government contribution had to be increased from R200 per capita to R275 per capita. It was also caused by an expected increase in the number of applicants qualifying for assistance.

*The hon. member referred to a technically qualified person and an academically qualified person who had been turned down. I want to tell the hon. member at once that my door and the door of my department are naturally open at all times in cases where people have been turned down. We shall give sympathetic attention to rejections at all times by referring such cases back to the Immigrants’ Selection Board. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that the Immigrants’ Selection Board has a very explicit instruction and obligation which is imposed upon it by section 4(3)(d) of the Act. This section provides that we must not grant permanent residence to people if there are already sufficient people in that industry in the Republic itself. When I say that we shall sympathetically reconsider rejections, therefore, I am afraid that we must also bear in mind at all times the explicit provisions of the Act in this connection and we shall get into trouble, on the other hand, if we do not adhere closely to the provisions of the Act.

As far as delays are concerned, it must be accepted that delays do occur in individual cases. However, in many cases the delay is due to the person’s own failure to comply with certain requirements. In any event, I shall go into this matter, with reference to cases which have come to my attention, in order to ascertain whether this problem cannot be eliminated.

As far as the question of the means test is concerned, I want to state categorically, also in respect of the criticism expressed in the Press about the person who was alleged to have come here with pure-bred dogs and Rolls Royce cars, that no means test whatsoever is applied. The attitude of the department is that if a rich person, a person who is well-provided with capital, emigrates to South Africa, such a person is a great asset to the country and the small investment by this department in such a person’s passage and the expenditure on temporary accommodation is a small investment on the part of the department in such a person. I just want to repeat that no means test is applied.

Next I want to deal with the question of permanent residence permits and temporary residence permits. There may be confusion among uninformed people in this respect, but it ought to be quite clear that when a person has come here with a work permit or wishes to remain in the country with a temporary permit, the matter falls under the Department of the Interior, for good reasons. The moment such a person wants to settle here permanently, he must apply to my department. I do not think this is really a serious problem. Then I want to come to the hon. member’s appeal, which he made here last year as well, concerning the question of teachers. I want to tell the hon. member quite frankly that I am very sympathetic towards this matter, just as sympathetic as my predecessor. However, it is a matter for the educational authorities, and my department would be only too glad, if the educational authorities could sort out these problems, to bring in these people, if they have a permanent contract. However, I want to add that in pursuance of the promises made here by my predecessor last year, he wrote to the educational authorities, including the Administrators of the provinces. Now I must give the hon. member the discouraging news that we have been told by the Administrator of Natal, for example, that in spite of three intensive attempts to recruit teachers—their Deputy Director of Education was personally in charge of the recruiting effort in the United Kingdom—Natal eventually recruited 30 teachers. I do not want to go into the whole story now, but of these teachers, only six finally stayed on permanently in Natal. When one comes to the practical application of this, therefore, overseas teachers seem to be faced with tremendous problems and obstacles in coming to South Africa. However, as I have said, my department is very sympathetic towards this matter.

The hon. member for Kempton Park spoke of contributions to assimilation organizations. I can stage categorically that we always give sympathetic consideration to increasing these contributions, subject, of course, to what the Treasury is prepared to give from time to time. However, I want to make an appeal to the general public once again in this connection to give generous support to the 1820 Settlers Association and the MEI in the splendid work they are doing. In this connection I want to make a special appeal to the firms whose interests are closely affected by the recruitment of immigrants. I want to appeal to them to make a larger contribution to these assimilation organizations.

As far as national service by young immigrants is concerned, I want to give my wholehearted support to the appeal made by the hon. member for Kempton Park to these young people to join the Defence Force on a voluntary basis. I cannot imagine any better method of assimilation than joining the Defence Force on a voluntary basis. The hon. member referred to the law in this connection, and it is true that they cannot be forced to do this. When the question is raised of an obligation which should be imposed upon these people, this does not fall under my department, of course, but under the Department of Defence.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Koedoespoort for having emphasized what the immigrant means to us, not only in the material field, but also in the non-material field. I wholeheartedly agree with him in the plea he made and the means he suggested for breaking down the antipathy to immigration.

The hon. member for South Coast did not make derogatory remarks about Portuguese immigrants himself, but referred to the antipathy which exists among some people in this connection. The percentage of Portuguese who obtained permanent residence in the Republic last year was only 9,4% of the total. So the criticism against Portuguese immigrants is completely unfounded in the light of this low percentage. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with his criticism of the article in the Financial Mail. I think I have already proved that the facts it contains are not correct. But then I also want to say that I do not take the Financial Mail seriously, for in its edition of 1 February 1974 it said exactly the opposite, i.e. the following—

I want to point out that we have complied with most of these things. That is why we have this fine figure. We have not even been small-minded as far as the importation of journalists is concerned. In the period between 1973 and 1975, we allowed 54 journalists to settle permanently in this country, and I think that many of them are journalists who could be of service to the Financial Mail and similar publications.

May I ask the Minister whether he thinks there are not enough journalists in South Africa already?

When I recall certain speeches made by the hon. member for Simonstown, he almost persuades me to think so, but on the other hand I think that we should be generous as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member for Brentwood raised two important matters. I can only refer to them briefly, because I have just a few minutes left. He pointed out that one often sees newspaper reports of crimes in which immigrants are involved. I want to appeal to our Press to make sure of their facts. You know, Sir, there is a great difference between a person who is in the country temporarily as a tourist or with a temporary permit and a person who has obtained permanent residence here after having complied with the exacting requirements of my department. But now all these people are simply lumped together; all are classified as immigrants, and in many cases this casts an unfavourable reflection on the selection done by my department.

But the hon. member mentioned another important aspect, and that is whether there should not be a socio-economic inquiry into what becomes of immigrants. This is a point which will receive further attention. However, I may say that the Institute for Sociological, Demographical and Criminological Research and the S.A. Human Sciences Research Council are already engaged in long-term research in connection with immigration in South Africa. Part I of the report, a statistical survey of some demographical and socioeconomic aspects of immigration in the Republic, has just been published and a second part will, it is hoped, be published shortly, while work will be continued on further parts. This body will be consulted to find out whether all the aspects mentioned by the hon. member are included in the project and, if not, whether they can be included in the research. I hope this meets the hon. member’s request.

Finally, the hon. member for Losberg asked me whether it would be possible for the MEI and the 1820 Settlers Organization to cooperate. This is a matter these people have to decide among themselves. The mere fact that he has raised this matter will probably come to the notice of these two organizations. They will have to consider this themselves. As regards academic requirements for technically skilled persons, I regret that we are unable to lower our standards. We cannot lay down lower standards for immigrants than for our own people.

I replied a short while ago to questions in connection with funds for assimilation organizations. I believe, therefore, that I have replied to all the representations that were made to me. Before I resume my seat, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for a very balanced and constructive debate.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 39 and S.W.A. Vote No. 24—“Water Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I was very relieved when the hon. the Minister came walking in here this morning. I wondered whether or not he would be on time. I should just like to add, however, for the information of the hon. member for Piketberg that I think we can just as well dispose of this Vote without the hon. the Minister!

We now have to welcome a new Minister to this Vote again. Of course, it is not my task as a member of the Opposition to pay tribute to the predecessor of the hon. the Minister, but I should like to say that I think the previous hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. Fanie Botha was an excellent Minister of Water Affairs. The criterion for the success of the present Minister will therefore be whether he will be able to take the place of the previous Minister.

He will.

However, I wish him well. In fact, I hope he will, because water affairs, to my mind, is of the utmost importance in this country.

I should just like to deal with the policy of this party briefly and indicate which principles we accepted in the old days—in 1966. Since that year the approach of the Government and the ideas of the people have changed radically as far as water affairs are concerned. I believe it is correct to say that we mainly discussed matters such as irrigation during those years. The Department of Water Affairs was only a junior ministry then which was not really very important, in any case not in the eyes of the people. Today, however, this is one of the most important ministries in the country. This change took place over a period of only 10 or 12 years. As I have said, during those years we discussed things like irrigation matters, but today all of us realize that every drop of water in this country is of the utmost importance for the future of the whole population of this country.

In 1966 Mr. Douglas Mitchell gave a great deal of thought to the affairs of the country, particularly water affairs. He insisted that we should work out a few principles in this party with regard to the conservation of water in this country. He wanted us to explain our approach to the conservation of water. We then laid down five principles which are, in my opinion, still as important as they were 10 years ago. During those years Mr. Jim Fouché was the Minister, and he was interested in these principles of ours. I should like to set out these principles for the hon. the Minister, who is a new Minister, to prove that we had been on target even then. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that we are not necessarily expressing any criticism of the department now. I just want to prove that the ideas we had 10 years ago, are still just as valid after a period of 10 years.

†Mr. Chairman, the five principles which we set out are—and this is Mr. Douglas Mitchell’s thinking on the matter: Firstly, that existing communities, both urban and rural, should have their water supplies secured for them. I shall deal with this aspect in more detail later in my speech; secondly, the full development of South Africa’s own water resources should be implemented before it engages in foreign adventures, which can only be justified on diplomatic or good neighbour grounds; thirdly, the grid system, utilizing the water from snowfall areas and high berg regions, should be developed to provide for the deflexion of water from regions of surplus to regions of short supply; fourthly, the need for apportionment to be undertaken by the department after the fullest survey of supplies of all sources has been made, and, fifthly, research on a large scale as to the purification, re-use and desalination of water and also the investigation of underground water supplies. Mr. Mitchell raised these matters several years in succession. The one year which I particularly remember was 1970 and I should like to quote from Hansard cols. 4596 et seq. where he said—

The next question I should like to deal with is the question of foreign adventures. If ever there was a time when the UP’s attitude towards this was justified and brought into focus, it is this year where we have had the problem with the undertaking we have in Angola with regard to the Ruacana scheme and also the Cabora Bassa scheme. These are schemes which were undertaken for various reasons, inter alia, of helping neighbouring States and supplying ourselves with water, in the case of Ruacana, South West Africa. These are not under the control of this department and are not funded by this department, but by other departments, as Mr. Mitchell said, by reason of good-neighbourliness or to guarantee our own future water supplies, after we had taken steps to ensure that every possible undertaking that could be undertaken internally was in fact undertaken and brought to a conclusion.

The hon. the Minister will remember that in those days—1966, 1967 and 1968—there was a very serious shortage of water in the Vaal triangle and the question of the construction of the Oxbow Dam was freely discussed at that time. I remember that at that time the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and I were visiting Lesotho. We took a tour to look at the site for the proposed Oxbow Dam. The hon. the Minister has just been to Lesotho and he does not therefore require any imagination to know what we are talking about. I would like him to tell us something today about any developments which there might have been in that direction. I say this specifically from this point of view that we should not in any way be staking our future, as it were, on participation in a scheme in neighbouring countries, having seen from our experience during the last couple of years what can happen in this particular situation. I think that the wisdom of Mr. Douglas Mitchell in those days, in setting out that principle, has been fully justified by the events that have taken place in the last year or so.

The third matter with which I would like to deal is the question of the grid system. I hope to deal with certain White Papers later in my speech. This is really a matter of common sense, requiring tremendous resources of engineers and engineer talent together with resources of money.

The need for apportionment need hardly be discussed anymore, but in the days we made that a principle of our party’s ideas on water affairs, I do not think the scope or the scale on which apportionment was going to take place was fully realized. We are now told that by 1985 every drop of water in this country is going to be allocated to somebody, even in the case of the Orange River. Although there are thousands of cubic metres of water available today which are not going to be utilized in the foreseeable future, as we see it, apportionments have been made from the Orange River Scheme. I think this is something about which we have to be continuously conscious. As every single resource is developed and the more and more we develop our resources, we have to bring this into finer focus and have got to allocate every single drop of water and also plan beyond that. The available water which we have and for which we can plan, is not enough. Having planned and allocated the whole lot we will have to look beyond our borders for other sources either by the re-use method, by desalination or by means of other methods.

That leads me to the fifth principle, namely that of research. I shall deal with that later in my speech. Having accompanied a parliamentary group last year on their trip to Iran I was interested to see, walking into the Hilton Hotel there that there was a big placard stating “Conference on large dams”. I hoped that I would be able to spare an hour or two to listen to this conference, but unfortunately it had been held a week before and that the Secretary for Water Affairs, Mr. Kriel, had been present. I am told that he is a person who is held in very high esteem in this community of engineers. I think that our techniques in South Africa have a great deal to offer in these matters.

I think it is a source of satisfaction to all of us that this department is one which can participate in this kind of discussion where we can learn a lot and where we have a lot to give. I certainly think that this is one of the most exciting departments in the country as regards the way it is thinking, developing our water resources and accepts the challenges which engineering places before us, because we know that we have to provide water, above everything else. Without the water that is provided, we as a people have no chance. The problem that we have in discussing a Vote like this is that we are discussing an immense amount of money, an enormous amount of money. Over R100 million is committed annually, and we have the absolute certainty that every year, when that amount of money has been committed, the costs that have been undertaken will, by the next year, be above what we have now estimated. It just has to happen. I wonder, Sir, whether we are really going to get to a stage where we are going to run ourselves into a very tight comer indeed. We are going to have to slow down our development in relation to the total demand for water because of the escalation of costs against the engineering which is required to provide our needs. This is one of the biggest things that we face. Time and time again White Papers submitted to the House deal with requests for more money because a particular scheme for which R3 million or R5 million was budgeted, has now escalated to R7½ million, R8 million or R12 million, or whatever it may happen to be. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention, and perhaps he will answer this for us, to the discussion of the P. K. le Roux Dam in 1972. The hon. the Minister will remember that there was a discussion on whether it should go out to private contract or whether the Department of Water Affairs should build it internally. Mr. Etienne Malan was discussing the matter with the hon. the Minister and Mr. Malan said, and I quote from col. 6346 of Hansard of 3 May 1972—

When I look at the estimates for this year I see that under the heading: “P. K. le Roux Dam” there is an amount of R90 million. I use this as an illustration of my point. Here we had a Minister in 1972 accepting a challenge, that this dam would be built for R45 million, and I do not think this was met. Whether my reading of the figures was wrong, Sir, I do not know, but I would say that if you see an amount on the estimates for the P. K. le Roux Dam of R90 million, it means that the R45 million has been considerably exceeded.

They are not only building a dam wall.

That was the contract for the dam only.

I accept that point. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to be within the R45 million as indicated by his predecessor. I will allow him the 5% which the hon. the Minister at the time said was fair.

You must add inflation.

I am prepared to allow him perhaps another 5%, because there has been such unreasonable escalation. But then I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to meet this particular challenge which his predecessor accepted.

I now want to deal with the question of irrigation. We have before us here White Papers dealing with a variety of projects. One of them which I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister, is the Upington Islands Government Water Scheme. While I am dealing with this, I want to revert to the stand I have already taken with regard to the Department of Water Affairs, when I said that I believed there should be a Select Committee of this House to deal with White Papers like this. A Select Committee will be better equipped for the task of going into technical detail and of getting a better understanding of what is contained in these White Papers, than we can possibly be here. A Select Committee can have a more in-depth discussion of White Papers than we can possibly have in the few minutes available to us in this Committee. I believe this is something which is of vital importance for the information of members, to enable every hon. member to understand what exactly these White Papers are dealing with, and of equipping hon. members to constructively take part in this debate and to understand what is going on.

I now want to deal with the Upington Islands Government Water Scheme. I referred to the second supplementary report on this scheme. According to the summary of costs, on page 17, the annual cost to the State per ha of irrigated land is R500. It is stated there that:

That means that all interest, shortage on interest and all other shortfalls have been written off. In other words, one is only dealing with the accumulated capital costs. If the accumulated interest and deficits on operating costs are written off—I do not know what the actual amount is; I would be interested to know—the actual cost is reduced to R291 per hectare per annum. One then takes off, as is usual, a subsidy of 33⅓%, and that reduces it further to R232 per ha per annum. To that is to be added the cost of water from the storage units of the Orange River project, which amounts to R225 per hectare per annum for a quota of 15 000 cubic metre per hectare. In other words, when one comes to setting the rate, it is something in excess of R232 per ha per annum. That is for an irrigation project, the whole of which is set out in this White Paper.

In connection with the water rate—that is also to be found on page 17—we are dealing with a matter where one has to recover from irrigators a certain amount of the money which is spent to provide this water. This deals with this specific project. I would like confirmation from the hon. the Minister that this White Paper deals with this project only and not with the extended cost of the whole thing over many years. Perhaps I am wrong. This may be taking into account previous amounts which have been budgeted and brought up to date here. I hope I am correct in saying that the final cost here, is something in excess of R232 per ha per annum, and that what we have here, is the fixing of a Government rate on the board’s scheme. This is a water board. Particulars are being given about the water rate. I again quote from page 17—

I am not dealing specifically with this project. I am not opposed to this project or anything of that nature, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us where we come to the end of providing water for irrigation at this kind of cost, particularly when the cost involved is in excess of R232 per ha per annum. From that amount the department can only expect to recover an amount of R25 per ha per annum.

In other words, this is nothing but a massive capital investment by the State in irrigation. There is no motivation in the White Paper as to the return per acre. Then there is another irrigation scheme, the pumping scheme of the Groenland Irrigation Board. When we are dealing with the question of water rates, we are told that the return per hectare on this particular ground is something like R900 odd per ha per annum and it is proposed that we should levy a rate of R117 per ha per annum. There at least is a basis and we know that we can at a least recover R117 per ha per annum. In regard to the island at Upington there is no intention, according to the White Paper, to recover more than R25 per ha per annum and there is no setting out in the White Paper why that should be so. It raises the question of whether we do not need having an investigation by members of this House into the whole set-up of irrigation costs and the costs/benefit ratio which the country gets from a massive capital investment of this kind in irrigation. Food production is of vital importance and one can hardly deny oneself the opportunity of producing food, even at this cost. However, if one looks, from a purely business point of view at the cost/benefit resulting from this kind of investment, I wonder whether we should not investigate this. It may very well be that the department will have to take some very tough decisions, but in view of the limited amount of capital, the escalating cost of capital, and the totally new approach to the department has to take to water supplies, I very much doubt whether we can afford to go on with that sort of investment. I should like to have some reaction from the hon. the Minister, an indication as to whether the hon. the Minister agrees with me that an investigation is urgently required in cases of this sort.

Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of other things to say, but my time has already been exceeded.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to concur with what the hon. member for Mooi River said and associate myself with the welcome and congratulations which he conveyed to our new Minister of Water Affairs. I know him as someone who grew up with the problems of the department and of irrigation and I do not doubt that as Minister of Water Affairs, he will not only have good contact with the problems of the department and the people concerned, but will also manage the department with great success. I should like to wish the hon. the Minister all strength and wisdom in carrying out his task.

I should also like to address the Secretary of the department. We heard that not only did he receive an honorary doctorate from the University of the Witwatersrand, but he was also offered an honorary professorship at the University of Pretoria. We should like to congratulate him very much indeed on this distinction. Until last year he was also vice-president of the International Association of Engineers for Large Dams and therefore he also proved on the international level that he is someone with special knowledge and status. We congratulate him very sincerely on this, and we are grateful that the talents and knowledge which he has, are at the disposal of the department and of the Government.

I should also like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mooi River said namely that this discussion is actually very easy and that they follow the activities of this department not only with interest, but also in a spirit of co-operation. I should also like to say that we always receive the greatest and closest co-operation from hon. members who are interested in the activities of the Department of Water Affairs. I think it is a good thing that I express my appreciation for this on this occasion.

It is always pleasant to co-operate with these hon. members at this level. Indeed, they make a good contribution and we are grateful for it. I think we all realize that we are moving in a sphere here where particular problems and questions are being experienced which do not only require all our attention, but also our talents, thoughts and good co-operation. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House who are responsible for Water Affairs, I should like to thank the hon. gentlemen very much indeed.

We are very interested in the progress which has been made over the past few years in respect of recruiting engineers for the Department of Water Affairs. As hon. members will realize, this department is very much dependent upon the number of qualified engineers at its disposal. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Minister S. P. Botha, made it his special duty to attempt to place as many engineers in training as possible who would then ultimately make their services available to the department. I believe that over the years a large number of students have been recruited to enrol themselves. Then, they are also supported with a view to receiving training in engineering. We should like to know whether any of these young men are as yet available to the department and whether we are able to strengthen the engineering corps to an increasing degree. In other words, the question is whether we are keeping these young engineers for the department. It does not help simply to recruit them and arouse their interest, but in these times of open competition with the private sector, it is important to know whether we are able to keep these people.

If we lose too many of these people, I should like to suggest for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that he make the necessary representations to enable us to place these young engineers on a special starting salary notch so that they will be encouraged to remain in the service of the department. It seems to me, especially in the early stage, as though the attractive offers by private bodies are such that they cannot be refused. In my opinion, they are not sufficiently encouraged to remain with the department. We should like to know whether any progress has been made in this connection and what problems exist. We should like to see the hon. the Minister use his influence to keep as many of these young people as possible for the department.

I should like to make a few remarks on the activities and report of the Water Research Commission. This commission was established in 1971 and I am convinced—as a result of the activities of the department which I have seen—that it was a very important step and that this research commission provides a very important contribution towards the activities of the department. We simply cannot dissociate ourselves from the future threat of a water shortage in South Africa. We are dependent upon limited water resources and as a result of our increasing population and the increasing demand for water, it is a problem which we always have to take into account and to which we must continue to pay the most serious attention. For this reason I think it is essential that we should have the services of a water research commission at our disposal. We are also very pleased that this commission is already making an important contribution in this connection.

In respect of the future threat of water shortage in South Africa, I just want to point out that on page 5 of this report it is pointed out that the total calculated amount of water which can be distributed in the Republic of South Africa is estimated at 31,5 milliard cubic metres. The total annual demand for water by the year 2000 is calculated at 29,5 milliard cubic metres. In other words, within a space of 24 years the reserves which we will have at our disposal, will only be 2 milliard cubic metres of water. This is a very small safety margin. To me, this emphasizes the fact that we cannot wait until the year 2000 in order to make plans and take purposeful steps to combat the shortage of water, but that we should cope with the situation at this early stage and that we should make the necessary provision in a purposeful, deliberate and calculated way. It is calculated that better utilization of irrigation water may save us 1,5 milliard cubic metres of water per annum. Furthermore, saving by the reclaiming and the re-utilization of water—also an important facet of the activities of the Water Research Commission—can bring about a saving of 7,2 milliard cubic metres of water per annum, which means a total saving of 8,7 milliard cubic metres of water. This will be an important contribution. The situation in South Africa, however, indicates that we cannot simply say that a little water can be saved by utilizing irrigation water better and that a further 7,2 milliard cubic metres of water can be saved by means of reclamation installations, the re-utilization of water and other saving measures. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member a chance to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for the opportunity which he has afforded me of continuing with my speech.

This ensures that the Water Research Commission and the Department of Water Affairs, who are looked to for the necessary guidance and planning and the provision of the necessary water in the future, will continue to utilize every possible means to provide the required water supplies.

There are other important water resources which can be used and on which the department is already working. It is very informative for me and very interesting for us as laymen to see how the department is bringing about a more purposeful utilization of our resource s by means of linking up the various river systems. One thinks of the linking of the Tugela and Vaal River which not only provided for better control and storage of water in Natal for the requirements of the Tugela basin, but which also made water available for the industrial area of the Witwatersrand and made provision for hydroelectric installations. This project is very interesting and there are also other systems in the country which are suited to such projects and where the department is indeed busy complementing the water supply by linkage and making the improved provision of water possible. I am also thinking of the Boland water plan which is excellently suited to a linkage project of this kind and which is indeed included in the planning of the department. I am thinking of the linkage of the Riviersonderend and Berg Rivers with the present Theewaterskloof project which has already been commenced and which also includes the Eerste River which does not have a good catchment area. This gives us an idea what can be done. It opens up the possibility of us eventually having maximum utilization of a very important source of water, especially with a view to the requirements of the Cape Peninsula and the whole Western Cape Industrial area.

Sir, there are also other systems and other schemes. For example, we are now, at a very late stage, developing the water resources of the Breë River, which has for the most part been flowing into the ocean for centuries. There is even a possibility that we may be able to link up the water of the Breë River and the Berg River. For example I am thinking of the possibility of a dam in Mitchell’s Pass above Wolseley. Perhaps it will be possible to divert water from there not only to the Breë River Valley, but also to the Kleinberg River and the Voëlvlei Dam and, via the Voëlvlei Dam, also to Cape Town and Saldanha. For us as laymen these things are not only interesting, it compels a great respect from us for the achievements of engineering, and it stimulates as particular interest in the activities of this department. As I see it, there is even the possibility of the water from the Olifants River being incorporated in this project. The water of the Vier-en-twintig Rivers is already being diverted to voëlvlei. Possibly the building of the dam in the upper reaches of the Olifants River will mean that water can also be brought from there. To protect myself as the representative of that area I must at least say that I should not very much like to see something like this happening before the water of the Olifants River and the Doring River are utilized to their full capacity, for then my voters would object. However, I am sure that when proper provision is made for this, it will be another possibility.

As a future source of water we also have the oceans around South Africa of course. If one looks far into the future, one realizes that we will ultimately be very dependent upon desalinated sea water which is made available for human consumption. I should like to see that in this sphere as well we commence our planning in time. Schemes of this nature cannot be brought into being within a year’s time. I think that we can develop the desalination of sea water together with the development of nuclear power stations to great advantage. I think that with the development of the first nuclear power station in the Melkbos area we should start a large desalination project, especially with a view to the water requirements of the Cape Peninsula and the densely populated areas in the Western Province. It is essential that we make a start with this in good time. It may serve as a very good experimental phase for the desalination of our sea water resources. I realize that at the present juncture we find ourselves in a position where money is scarce and that the department has to use its available funds very judiciously, but as soon as it is in any way possible, we must proceed to the planning and erection of a desalination plant which may be linked to the nuclear power station which is soon to be built. I do not say that this is something which should be started on a large scale at various places, but in my opinion it is very essential for this nuclear power station on the West Coast, which is situated near the metropolitan area of Cape Town, to be used for the creation of such a plant with a view to experimentation and research. In this way it will be possible to build up the necessary knowledge which will ultimately enable us to provide the Republic of South Africa with sufficient water on a permanent basis.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I too would like to welcome the hon. the Minister on the first occasion that he is handling this Vote. We wish him well in this very important post. We have great hopes for the future. If I may refer to the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River, I joined his plea of earlier this year as strongly as I possibly could for some sort of system where we would have a better opportunity to discuss the operation of the department, because I, too, feel very strongly that the system we are operating under at present is totally inadequate. The 10 minutes we on these benches have to discuss this Vote is totally inadequate to discuss the many matters which interest us. I must say that the Department of Water Affairs produces some very instructive White Papers, which are of considerable assistance, but the sort of committee that the hon. member for Mooi River suggested I think will be a first-class idea to enable members to get their queries answered on an official level. At the present time I do not feel able, as a member of Parliament, to fulfil my responsibilities in regard to the considerable expenditure incurred by this department. It will be R150 million this year and, frankly, in spite of the White Papers, there are many questions that remain unanswered. At this stage I would like to say that I am a little surprised that we do not even have the report of the department for the last financial year before us in discussing this Vote. Like the hon. member for Piketberg, I was very impressed with the work of the Water Research Commission. Its annual report is before us, but I am very surprised indeed that we are expected to discuss the Water Affairs Vote when we have no report from the department before us. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why this has happened. It is now June 1976 and we have not had the report for the financial year ended June 1975.

Sir, there are a few matters I want to raise this morning. The first concerns a matter which I have raised on two occasions when the Vote Water Affairs was discussed in the House before. This concerns the Josini Dam in northern Natal. In 1974 I raised the matter in the debate, and I would like to quote, if I may, from col. 4084 of the 1974 Hansard. I asked the hon. the Minister a question and said—

At that time I got no answer at all from the hon. the Minister on the matter. He ignored it and gave me no answer at all; so the following year I raised it again, and I would like to quote from the 1975 Hansard, col. 5593—

The answer I got from the hon. the Minister was (col. 5615)—

Well, Sir, we are still faced with the situation that the dam is not full; it is not being utilized properly. We know that if it was full, the water would push up into Swaziland. I would like to quote from a report in The Star of 7 May 1976, under the name of Mr. James Clark, about the Josini Dam. He said—

I know it was not his answer that came through last year; he is a new Minister in a new portfolio, so I am in no way blaming him.

So I suppose you expect a new answer?

Yes, I would like a new answer, and I have a vague suspicion that I might just be getting a new answer. Could this hon. Minister tell me if what the previous hon. Minister said about this matter was true or untrue? Has there been trouble with the Swazi authorities or has there not? I think the hon. the Minister should clarify the matter. This dam cost us R18 million originally, and over a period we shall be spending another R18 million—this figure will no doubt escalate—on the canal system. There is certainly a lot of suspicion about this particular dam, because a lot of people seem to think that the money being spent is wasted money. The fact that there might be inadequate planning in respect of our neighbour, Swaziland, I find a terrible situation to contemplate.

I want to proceed from that to another dam in Natal, and that is the projected Umfolozi dam. The hon. the Minister has appointed a 11-man committee to investigate the implications of this project on the ecology of the game reserve itself. This is a matter of considerable interest to game conservationists throughout South Africa. I know the committee is probably still deliberating and that those deliberations might take some time, but I would like the hon. the Minister just to tell us if he knows how far things have progressed. Conservationists are very hot under the collar about this and I think a little clarity at this stage from the hon. the Minister might help to take the heat off.

I now want to put another question to the hon. the Minister. I know I am going through these questions at quite a rate, but with such limited time one has to pack a lot into ten minutes. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the exact position is in regard to the Calueque scheme at the moment. I know alternative arrangements were made to bring in water from the Kunene, but again I think it would be a good gesture on the part of the hon. the Minister to explain exactly what is being done about bringing water into Owam-boland. Have they had to introduce water restrictions during the summer period and what are the plans for next year?

I want to ask, too, about the court case involving J. C. I. Di Penta Joint Venture, the matter at issue being the final account for the Orange/Fish tunnel scheme. I realize the matter is still sub judice, but as hon. members no doubt know, a summons was issued to the department for R 17,42 million. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us whether or not any progress has been made towards settling this matter or whether it is going to end up in a blow by blow fight in the courts of our land? I ask this because R17,42 million is a considerable amount. In fact, it is more than 10% of the annual budget of the department.

My final question concerns the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. There have been further newspaper reports, but because I cannot vouch for the accuracy of those reports, I must put this question to the hon. the Minister. What is the situation with regard to the silting up of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam? I know this has always been a rather difficult question to answer but I would like to have an up-to-date report about exactly how much silting up has taken place and whether or not the fears that certain people have expressed are at all justified? I hope they are not justified, but I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what action has been taken. Perhaps he could give us an up-to-date report on the situation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat really hopped around like an Egyptian goose from one dam to another, and he stays in the water. I think the hon. the Minister will answer his questions quite satisfactorily, and therefore I shall leave his speech at that. I can understand that the hon. member for Mooi River, just like the hon. member for Orange Grove, would like to have a commission to enable them to make a more extensive inquiry and to say more about water affairs. I can understand that the people need things like this, but the hon. member for Mooi River will have to start that fight on his own. We on this side of the House do not need that.

You are not interested. That is the problem.

No, Sir, we are interested, but we have access to the hon. the Minister and the Department whenever and wherever we wish it. I find it amazing that the hon. members opposite do not have that same access. I accept it …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he has read in detail all the White Papers that have been laid before us? Does he understand them and can he quote from them? Does he know what it is all about?

Mr. Chairman …

We will not believe you.

Mr. Chairman, I am a medical practitioner and those two hon. members sitting there are lawyers and I really challenge them …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to call me a “prokureur” when I am not?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, you have not asked me to withdraw it, but I offer my apologies to the hon. member.

What do you want to say about attorneys?

I shall tell the hon. member just now because then I shall be able to say it more bluntly. The hon. chairman will call me to order if I say it now.

We are not engineers. There are two engineers in this House and I do not think that the two of them would like to sit around a table to hold a discussion, not if I am any judge, anyway. I really cannot see how a Select Committee can sit down and thrash out the engineering aspects of a dam. It is unthinkable to me. However, I grant the hon. member his argument.

I want to return to the Water Research Commission. This department is one which is concerned with specialist organizations. The department found that it was necessary to set up a water research commission. The department found it necessary—and succeeded in its aim—to set up this water research commission in such a way as not to cost the State a cent extra and so that all the irrigators and water users in this country may be satisfied and very pleased with it. The fact that the Water Research Commission does its work on business principles, was spelled out by the hon. member for Piketberg. They drew up a balance sheet for water. According to this, as the hon. member told you, we are going to have certain shortages by the end of this century. Now a plan must be made. This is how businessmen make a plan: On the credit side one must consider where one can obtain more water. The hon. member spelled this out too. On the debit side one must see where one can effect savings in water. This the hon. member spelled out too.

How must these savings be effected? There are three groups of people concerned here. In the first instance, there are the planners. The planners are the Minister and the politicians, in other words, you and I. This is what we are here for today. We must plan to make the necessary funds available to these people so that they can continue with their work. The other persons involved are those who carry out the plans. Once again, it is the Minister, his department and the researchers. Water can be saved in various areas. To elaborate on this I should have to go too far. I therefore want to confine myself solely to irrigation and the water which can be saved in this process, and the research being carried out in this respect. For the information of the House I may just mention that a milliard cubic metres per annum means approximately 600 million gallons of water per day for a whole year. This is a great deal of water. Through the correct application of irrigation and irrigation methods, we can be saving almost a million gallons of water per day by the end of this century. Serious research is now being done in respect of water conservation. Water conservation techniques, water research matters are an inter-departmental affair, in regard to which the department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Water Affairs are shoulder to shoulder. It covers a broad spectrum, inter alia, water requirements, water for domestic use, water for plants, climatological conditions, etc. It is mainly the Department of Water Affairs to which is entrusted the task of water research in order to improve and facilitate irrigation and to determine where savings can be effected. In the first instance, there is the administration of irrigation water, i.e. storage of water, the distribution of water in canals and the supply and distribution of water within the scheme itself.

I want to dwell for a moment on the methods of water utilization on the irrigated plot. The Water Research Commission has compiled a complete plan of how these techniques must be approached. There is one outstanding aspect which I do not see there. I think that this research should actually be concentrated on target areas. The present Vaalharts area could be such a target area, which will virtually lend itself to this because all the irrigation will go in just about that direction with the irrigation which has now been started along the north bank of the Orange River. It seems to me that those techniques which will have to be very well planned. The first 26 plots are now in the process of being distributed. I know that this is not the task of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, but that it is the task of Agricultural Credit. But as I said in a previous debate, to me it is vital that the managerial ability of the applicant—and the issue here is chiefly irrigation techniques—should be of decisive importance in the awarding of these plots. However, this is not all. I spoke to the local engineers there and it seems that they are working towards sprinkler irrigation there. The cost of the sprinkler irrigation systems required for each of those plots will cost between R18 000 and R25 000 at the moment. Research is worthless if it cannot be conveyed to people. The engineer who has to convey these matters is the regional engineer, and therefore I consider him the key to the whole question of the technique of irrigation water conservation.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to me to respond to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith. It was clear that he had prepared a very good speech to deliver in this hon. House on his birthday. On behalf of all hon. members I should like to congratulate him on his birthday.

I should also like to welcome the hon. the Minister most heartily to this department. We all know him very well. He won his spurs while he was still the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. Since he emerged from that department unscratched—especially from the division with which he had to deal—he really ought to have very good qualities. In spite of all the problems he had to contend with in that department, he nevertheless completed his task without losing the friendship of anyone with whom he had worked. I should like to congratulate him most sincerely on the new position he has. I also want to assure him that he can depend on the same support as before, both from the farmers and the other people who work with him. Moreover, he will definitely enjoy the wholehearted support of all the officials in his new department. Furthermore, I want to associate myself with hon. members who congratulated the Secretary of the Department, Dr. Kriel, on his achievements.

It is always clear, whenever a person rises above the normal level as has happened in this instance, that like this, people usually think that that person must be enjoying tremendous privileges. However, the fact remains that an honour such as this is not bestowed on anyone for no reason at all. It takes hard work, perseverance, and probably many nights of study as well, planning and frequent absences from home to achieve in the end such eminence as Dr. Kriel has in fact achieved. We wish him and his family everything of the best.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made mention of the Josini Dam. I also want to refer to the Josini Dam, because it would appear to me that people often looked for reasons to criticize the Government in the past, as they still do even today—not always with good intentions—about the question of the Josini Dam. The fact remains that at the present time the water of that dam is largely the property of KwaZulu, in terms of the demarcation proposals adopted by this House. At present that water is being used for irrigating areas behind the Lebombo Mountains. The canal system is under construction, but I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how much land of Whites and non-Whites, respectively, is going to be irrigated. By mentioning this, the hon. the Minister will solve one important problem.

Many people are under the impression that the money which was spent on that project, was spent exclusively for providing water to the non-Whites, while the bill was footed by the White taxpayer.

The problem which is bothering me, concerns an area much higher up, before the water reaches the Josini Dam. The source of that water is situated in my constituency. It is Natal, but in the vicinity of Wakkerstroom. The main stream is that of the Pongola River. This in turn, has a water supply from the Small and Great Pivaan Rivers as well as from other tributaries, like the Manzaan and the Penvaan. These are all tributaries of the Pongola River.

When an area is as rich in water as that specific area is, it seems to me—in accordance with the plan to which the hon. member for Mooi River referred—that plans should be put into operation to take water from that area to other areas. It seems that matters are planned in such a way that water from areas which are rich in water, is used elsewhere. This creates problems. Natal is a province which is rich in water, but its water is largely unused, nor is it being used for a variety of purposes, apart from industrial use, etc. Purely by chance, as nature arranged it, this water of the Pongola River became international water when Swaziland became independent. When KwaZulu becomes independent, more States will have authority over the river. In these areas we have a tremendous run-off of water and up to now that water has run into the sea, because water for the irrigation canals which are used in the Pongola area—in other words, the settlement there—is diverted from the river on an exchange basis. In summer it is not always necessary to irrigate, because normally good rains fall in that area at that time. In winter, when the farmers need the water, a strict quota has to be applied to them because there is too little water in the river to meet the needs of all the farmers. The effect of this is that that area, which is a highly productive area, suffers because of the fact that there is no dam higher up on the Pongola River to serve that area and supply it with a constant supply of water—not necessarily run-off, but storage water. I am still of the opinion that if one or two dams are constructed on the Pongola River and one or two on the Pivaan River, the water from such dams, regardless of the amount of land which is suitable for irrigation, but is not under irrigation as yet, will give the existing irrigation farmers in that area an absolutely certain future. In addition it will be possible to supply a very large area, such as the Railway Valley, extending as far down as Richards Bay, with water.

Although there are measuring stations and although the department tells us that the water is just enough to fill the Josini Dam if they close the flood-gates, I want to allege that if we have a rainy season such as the one we had this year, we shall be able to fill the Josini Dam at least three times. I myself saw the streams which flowed past the dam, and it is unbelievable to think that such masses of water are allowed to run into the sea, while we are struggling in the dry areas to get some water. If we can store that water, there cannot be any objection to pumping it to the areas which have a low rainfall or do not get enough rain to supply the extensive metropolitan areas of the Witwatersrand and Pretoria with water. We are not so far away from them, in any event not much further than the Tuva Scheme. There is still a great deal of surplus water there.

The amount of land which can be brought under irrigation in that area—apart from that on which sugar cane is being cultivated at the moment—all along Railway Valley, comes to nearly 70 000 morgen. Not only will that land be served by such dams as are constructed on the upper reaches of the Pongola and Pivaan Rivers, but it can also be provided with water which can be stores in the White and Black Umfolozi Rivers as well as in the Mkuze River. These are all rivers which rise near the mountains of the second plateau of the Drakensberg range. If storage takes place, it will mean that larger industrial areas can be established in the vicinity of Vryheid and in the direction of Richards Bay. Whether the Department of Water Affairs is aware of this or not—I assume they are—this is an axis for the development of industrial areas from Richards Bay via Vryheid down to Volksrust. We shall have to pay attention to that axis in order to bring relief as far as the large manpower and water consumption factors as well as other factors in the Natal Midlands area are concerned; in other words, the normal axis which has virtually become so broad now that its size gives rise to problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow the hon. member for Vryheid only so far as to put a question regarding the Josini Dam on the Pongola River. I should like to know how it is planned in future to release the water from the Josini Dam. The Makatini Flats, the flood plains, below the dam in the past used to depend for survial on the floodwaters flowing down the river and through the poort. These enormous flood plains, on the Mukutini Flats are probably the finest flood plains in the whole of southern Africa. I know it is a considerable ecological problem to decide how the floodwaters will be utilized, to the best advantage to maintain the pans and the fish. There is a considerable fishing industry there and it is still being used by the indigenous people of the area as a protein supplement, and the floods during specific times of the year affects the whole food chain. I wonder whether it would be possible, where the water will be used to a considerable extent for irrigation, to still maintain the annual floods down the flood plains and to maintain the fishing industry on which the indigenous population depends. Research is being done in this field, and I should like to know by whom and with what success, because I believe it is very important to maintain these floods if possible. Could this not be one of the reasons why the dam has not yet been allowed to fill up, because some of these problems have not been solved?

This is probably the very last century in the history of South Africa that we will be able to enjoy the luxury of using and wasting water with such freedom as we have been doing up to now, to see water running freely downstream in rivers and to see fish swimming up on rivers for considerable distances. Already we see dams on most of these rivers, blocking the migration route of fish and eels. If one looks at the water balance of the Republic and at what is required for the maintenance of the equilibrium in water supply and demand, one realizes how the availability of water could become an enormous limiting factor to the agricultural, economic and population growth of South Africa in the future. Our total water supply is limited by our total rainfall over the country as a whole which, with all man’s wonderful abilities to organize and control, have not yet successfully been increased to any practical extent. Our water supply is limited to the annual rainfall, and in spite of our efforts to try to improve our rainfall, we have not been able to do much about it. Our main source of water still remains underground water and the water run-off in our streams. We know how earlier generations regarded underground water as an almost limitless supply that can be tapped from water veins without any control. However, in recent years we have often seen how these underground sources of water suddenly petered out. I think we have come to realize more and more that limits will have to be placed on the underground sources of water, which occur in solution cavities or in sandstone, i.e. porous layers of sandstone underground. There are areas that, until the recent heavy rains, have had problems with underground water for stock-drinking purposes.

In the Cape Flats there has been a scheme to utilize the underground water to a considerable extent for city use and for potable purposes. I should be very interested to hear how far they have progressed with this research and when this will be phased into systems for the useful use of water. Almost 90% of the railfall remains in the soil, and this is ten times more than the river run-off. Of the 90% absorbed by the soil, 90% is lost as the result of evaporation and transpiration by the vegetation. Only about 10% penetrates deep enough for it to be used as underground water supplies. With careful and thorough investigation, research and planning and the necessary capital investment by the Department of Water Affairs, we might be able to make 60% of the mean annual run-off available for use, giving a reasonably assured supply in the future with underground resources to the total of about 51.5 million cubic metres, as has been mentioned in the House. This would be the total distributable water supply for domestic, recreational and industrial, irrigational and also stock-watering uses.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the House adjourned for lunch, I had mentioned the fact that it was projected that we might have available for use 31,5 million cubic metres of water a year and that our demand and consumption could possibly be 29.5 million cubic metres. This would give us a credit of about 2 million cubic metres of water. This credit could be swallowed up by the increase in water consumption over a period of two years. Consequently, it is essential to do research and to investigate various other possible sources of water. I also referred to the use of Underground water, to the over-exploitation that had taken place in the past and to the need for control. I also mentioned the excellent research that was being done in the Cape Flats scheme in order to make water available by making use of the excess water of the Eerste River and Kuils River and pumping it into the sand of the Cape Flats so that it could be used at a later stage. I see that we have contracted the CSIR.

The Institute for Water Research is doing work with the aim of storing reclaimed sewage water in the underground sands of the Cape Flats with the idea of pumping it out for potable use later. Various other schemes are being worked at and it is well known that in the southern Free State a considerable shortage of underground water exists and most of the towns are dependent on underground water for their water resources. These underground dolerite basins are being investigated to ascertain to what extent they are able to store water. The dolomitic geological formations of the northern Cape, which extend all the way from the northern Cape up to the Irene area, could also be one of the largest underground aquifers which could make a considerable amount of water available in the future. It is stored away from transpiration and evaporation in solution cavities and crevices. Considerable research is being done in order to utilize this water to a greater extent.

I believe that by coupling river systems, a lot can be done towards making water available in areas where there has been a shortage up to now, inter alia by diverting water from one river system into another, to the area where the demand might be greater, and the use of suitable and economic dam sites for storing the storm water and to impound it with greater efficiency. Looking at the annual report of the Water Research Commission, I could not help being impressed by the various research projects that have already been undertaken and which they still hope to undertake. They are doing a wonderful job at the moment. It is obvious that in order to fund the research work and to inhibit the wastage, the cost of water will have to increase over the years ahead. There will have to be more strict control over water usage and disposal, stricter control over water pumped from underground sources and these smaller rivers which can still be dammed freely, shall have to be harnessed. Our rivers could become dammed and be pumped almost to extinction in the future, and it is a tragedy that it might finally run down to a trickle. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with other hon. members who have conveyed their congratulations to the hon. the Minister. Furthermore, I also want to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed to the Secretary for Water Affairs for the honour conferred on him by the universities of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand. The hon. member for Benoni will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. He discussed very interesting subjects here and I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to them.

I should like to confine myself to matters relating to the biggest Government water scheme in the Republic of South Africa, namely the one in the Vaalharts region. It will interest hon. members to know that on 31 March 1976, the total irrigated area in this region comprised 29 468 ha. It is also interesting to know that according to an estimate by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the annual gross yield from this region is R20 million, which means that the annual gross yield per ha in this region is R768. I want to maintain that it is very valuable land that can produce so high a gross yield. What with the production of wheat, maize, peas, cotton, lucerne and grapes, at present being grown on a large scale, the Vaalharts region is one of the great larders of the Republic of South Africa, and it can and will increasingly become one of the biggest larders in the Republic. But, Sir, this fine region with its vast potential is falling prey to a serious malady. To be specific, the region is suffering from a disease of the land which can, and is, developing into a disaster for the individual farmer and for the State as a whole.

I refer here to the creeping death threatening the land in this region, namely mineralization and waterlogging. The danger of mineralization and waterlogging in this region is not an imaginary one. In surveys carried out by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services it has been found that in more than 40% of this region, the groundwater table is higher than 1 250 mm; viz. the water under the surface of the soil is more than 4 feet, in the old terms. This affects 832 farms, 150 of which are very seriously affected. Agriculturists are of the opinion that where the groundwater table is higher than 1 250 mm it reduces the harvest yield by 10%. These surveys were carried out in 1972 and 1974, and you will be able to realize, Sir, that the situation is now far more serious, owing to the excessive rains of the past season. The dangers entailed by this situation can only be alleviated under present circumstances by a system of internal drainage. Now, it is true that the farmers, aided by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, are at present undertaking internal drainage. Since 1974, 32 farms—the average size of which, in passing, is about 25 ha—have already been drained internally in this way. I could just explain that this system of internal drainage entails the laying of pipes—under these circumstances, perforated plastic pipes—at a depth of about 6 feet. These perforated pipes then convey the seepage to a specific point. But for internal drainage to be successfully applied, it requires an effective external drainage discharge canal—in other words, a canal into which this seepage can flow as it is abstracted from the farmland. This need for an effective external drainage discharge canal is our biggest problem at this moment. Farmers must and will practise internal drainage to save their land, but to be able to do so—I repeat—effective discharge facilities are required.

At this stage I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture and Water Affairs and the Deputy Minister as well as their top officials who personally visited that region. I should like to convey my sincere appreciation for the very sympathetic understanding of the problem of this region displayed by the hon. the Minister and the officials. Furthermore I want to express my thanks for the White Paper which was in fact tabled in connection with the proposed provision of effective external drainage discharge canals at an estimated cost of about R8 million. This will be for the construction of about 125 km of discharge canals for flood water and seepage. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and his officials for the knowledge that in spite of financial problems, a start will be made this very year on the digging of these canals.

But having expressed my thanks for the White Paper which has been tabled, at the same time I want to make a very earnest plea that the completion date aimed at for this canal system should be changed from the end of 1982-’83 to 1977-’78. I want to advocate the quickest possible completion of this work because we shall thereby be able to save the individual farmers from ruin. Sir, I could put it that there are people who have made large capital investments and who now have to see these pieces of land in which a great deal has been invested, being lost. It is an experience to face a farmer who tells one with tears in his eyes: “This is the only land I have; please help me so that I may leave this land to my child in a better condition than I found it.” I also want to advocate the advancement of the completion date for the work because the State has already made large capital investments in this region and further major investments will have to be made promptly for the preservation of that scheme and those farmers for the sake of our entire country.

Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic towards the hon. speaker who spoke before me about mineralization problems because in my constituency and in the entire Bree River region one comes across that problem. However, I want to convey a word of warning. Mineralization is often caused by over-irrigation. I am grateful to be able to add at once, however, that the department is aware of this problem and that the farmers will be assisted in limiting that mineralization problem to the minimum. However, the farmer must contribute his share by irrigating as judiciously as possible so as not, perhaps, to mineralize his land more than would ordinarily have been the case as the result of injudicious irrigation.

All one must do is make the water far more expensive.

The hon. member for Piketberg raised a point which I just want to explain here. In the Boland and elsewhere there are mighty rivers, and as far as the run-off is concerned, I think that the Bree River is probably one of the biggest in South Africa. The farmers in the Bree River valley will have no objection if the department links this river up with a bigger scheme. We only set one condition—a very logical condition; the hon. the Minister and the department would never arrange matters any other way—and that is that the region’s own requirements should first be met to the maximum extent. Naturally we cannot afford the surplus to disappear into the sea; water is too precious for that. That is why I agree with the hon. member for Piketberg that we should bring in that river, too, and utilize it in the national interest without making inroads on the maximum needs of the farmers of that region.

There is a further point I want to raise. This is something about which I am very pleased. I accept—because the hon. the Minister said so—that he is strongly in favour of the idea that established farmers with a water shortage should be assisted before large-scale expenditure on imaginative new schemes is proceeded with. I am not opposed to large and imaginative schemes, but if the hon. the Minister states that in certain regions in South Africa the farmers have been established for generations and that he wants to assist them first as soon as possible because they suffer from a water shortage, but without dropping the large schemes, then I am very pleased about that and very grateful to him.

The Western Cape is pre-eminently a fruit, vegetable and—may I say it—wine producing region. I am becoming rather weary of using the word “wine” in this House because people are already associating me with wine, but I am grateful and proud to be able to discuss that product as well. In the Western Cape there are about 20 fruit-canning factories and dozens of co-operative wine cellars which use large quantities of water. In the peak season it is calculated that in the Western Cape about 45 000 cubic metres of water per day are used by these co-operative wine cellars and fruit-canners. Sixty to seventy per cent of that water which goes to these factories and cellars is discharged as effluent, and that effluent has to be disposed of. I know—and the department is also aware of this because the Water Research Commission had something to say about it—that this effluent could cause problems, because in that effluent one finds an excessive suspended solid content, a high acid content and other phenomena. This effluent is often discharged into rivers. That is why I am grateful that this Water Research Commission, specifically at the request of the Fruit and Vegetable Canning Association, is devoting serious attention to dealing with this effluent, the issue of pollution and the possible re-use of that effluent. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps indicate how far the commission has progressed with the report they are compiling, because those problems are material ones in many parts of the Western Cape?

I want to say a few words about irrigation because intensive irrigation is practised in my region. It is calculated that at present, agriculture utilizes 75% of the total water supply. It is further stated that within 20 to 25 years, agriculture will only be able to lay claim to 40 to 45% of the available water supply. There are people who say that wine is not food; that is why I shall speak about fruit, grapes and vegetables instead. In the Boland the wine industry, the vegetable industry and the fruit industry are important economic industries, and the economy of the Western Cape has largely been based on these industries. Because these industries play an important role, it is of importance that the total water supply of the region should be adequate and capable of meeting the needs of the agriculturalist. Our farmers believe this and say so to each other, and most of them try to obtain the maximum production per unit of water. Not only will water become scarcer, but agricultural land cannot be manufactured either, and what with the expansion of towns and cities and the other infrastructure that has to be provided, it is a fact that the quantity of agricultural land is dwindling. For that reason it is the aim of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and of the Department of Water Affairs and the agriculturalist to obtain the maximum production, not only per unit of water, but also per unit of land. It is true that irrigation techniques play a very important role in the aim we are striving to achieve. I can show hon. members farmers who have had heavy water requirements and who have switched to micro-irrigation or drip irrigation at high capital expenditure. I have been asking for three years now how far the Bureau of Standards has progressed with research to establish a standard drip system for use by the agriculturalist so that a subsidy may be paid on drip irrigation.

Mr. Chairman, have you any idea what it costs to install a drip irrigation system on a farm? It costs at least R1 500 to R2 000 per morgen to install such a system. The industry in the Western Cape is capital intensive and I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether the Bureau of Standards is developing a standard drip system and whether he hopes to receive an answer from them shortly. It is essential that there be a standard drip system which may be approved by the Department of Water Affairs so that the department can subsidize the farmer in regard to such a system. The farmers’s primary aim is to conserve water and obtain the maximum harvest from his land. The farmer does not only envisage bolstering his economic position but also envisages making his contribution towards the increase in agricultural production. This applies not only to the farmer in the Boland, but also to the farmer in the Lowveld, the farmer in the Orange River scheme or wherever he may be—wherever we want to save water and utilize our land to the maximum extent.

Mr. Chairman, I am always in trouble when I have to speak after the hon. member for Worcester. He always champions the cause of his constituency so well that he reminds me of the old tune “Wine, Women and Song”. In fact, I am always tempted to address him as the hon. member for Wine Affairs.

You probably like the product!

I just have to say that I do not agree with what he said in connection with the mineralization of irrigation land, viz. that it was the result of over-irrigation. It is not always the result of over-irrigation, because it can also happen as a result of flood conditions in the river from which water for irrigation is abstracted. I must say I support whole-heartedly the plea of the hon. member for Kimberley North, because I have similar conditions in my constituency, in the lower Fish River Valley, after the severe flood conditions of 1974. At the time there was severe mineralization, not only of the soil, but also of the water, not as a result of over-irrigation, but as a result of the flood conditions.

†Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new appointment to full Cabinet level. We have had experience of his efficient planning and his sympathetic approach in his previous position of Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs, and we sincerely hope that he will continue in the same vein. His predecessor will, of course, be remembered as the man who tackled all the big schemes, like the Orange River scheme, the Tugela/Vaal scheme, the Cabora Bassa scheme, the Kunene scheme, the Berg River scheme and the Thebus/Waterkloof scheme. His predecessor had a very good private secretary and an excellent departmental secretary. This hon. Minister inherits the very excellent Secretary of his department, somebody who is admired by all members of this House, no matter what their party affiliation is. He is also very privileged to have a very good private secretary, a man who also has some understanding of what is going on.

All the more reason for me to be successful.

I think he will indeed be successful, but I hope that he will be remembered for his concern with the smaller schemes and the economic and efficient distribution of water and power from the big water schemes to the rest of the Republic of South Africa. In this regard I wish to draw his attention to the need for a regional water scheme in that area of the eastern Cape which falls between the Sundays River and the Great Fish River—which is to become the western boundary of the Ciskei—or, more specifically, that area which is defined in the national guide plan of the Department of Planning as area No. 13. The three main rivers in this area are the Bushman’s, the Kariega and the Kowie Rivers. The main towns in that area are Grahamstown, Alexandria, Patterson, Alicedale, Port Alfred, Bathurst, Kenton-on-Sea and Boesmansriviermond, with other holiday resorts at various stages of development, namely Canon Rocks, Boknes, Kasuka, Riet River, Kleine Mond, Fish River and Fort D’Acre. Of these towns, Grahamstown has a limited water supply. It is adequate in years of good rain, but becomes critically low in the dry seasons. They are inhibited from expanding their water schemes by the increased costs which have come about through inflation in this country as well as increased construction costs. They therefore have a problem. Alicedale has an adequate water supply from the railway dam and the Nuwejaars River. Alexandria has an adequate water supply from the Artesian springs at Cape Padrone which could possibly be further exploited as they are not being fully exploited by Alexandria. Port Alfred has a very limited supply from the Kowie River and a small dam in a tributary. Port Alfred, particularly, is inhibited by costs from expanding this scheme to keep pace with the growth of the town. In particular, Grahamstown and Port Alfred are inhibited by costs from expanding their schemes and they need assistance.

This is why we need a regional water scheme in the area. One of the holiday resort towns, Boesmanriviermond, has a limited scheme operating from wells in the sand dunes, while Boknes and Kanon Rocks are supplied from boreholes. The rest of the towns and resorts have to rely on rain water tanks for their water supply. Over and above this, the Bushman’s River Valley, between Alicedale and Ebb and Flow, has between 6 000 and 7 000 ha of highly productive irrigable ground. Some of this ground is already under irrigation from private weirs. There is an ideal site for a balancing dam above Ebb and Flow at a point known as Rooikrans on the farm Havestvale, which actually straddles the districts of Alexandria, Bathurst and Albany and which could provide an immense storage without inundating any irrigable ground whatsoever and from where the water could be gravitated to the coastal towns and resorts and could be pumped back to the Settlers Dam in order to augment the Grahamstown water supply.

Furthermore, the upper reaches of the Bushman’s River pass within a very short distance of the Fish-Sunday’s River canal. It would therefore not be a very costly operation, from an engineering point of view, to bring water from the Orange River to the Bushman’s River. Memoranda in this connection have been presented to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor by myself, the hon. member for Somerset East and by an organization known as the Orange-Bushman’s Regional Development Committee. Memoranda in this connection have been submitted to the hon. the Minister and his department from as far back as 1972. I have today again presented a full file of these memoranda to the hon. the Minister and he will note from the accompanying correspondence that this scheme has the support of all local authorities and all farmers’ associations in the area as well as the support of the hon. member for Somerset East. I may add that although the name of the Midlands Bantu Administration Board is not mentioned in the memoranda, this board is very much concerned with the provision of housing and hygienic facilities for the Bantu living permanently in the White area in the Midlands and they give their full support to an adequate regional water supply in this region. This would alleviate their problems in connection with providing water and proper residential facilities for the Bantu.

It may be argued that the Orange River water is being over-extended in its use and that this should therefore only come in in a very late phase. I would contend that, because of the fact that construction companies are working in that area now, the canal and sluice-gates should be provided to join the Fish-Sunday’s canal with the Bushman’s River, because we are not asking for water all the time. We are asking for water during times of emergency and of water crisis. In the coastal area that I am talking about we do not have to wait for the 100-year flood, we have a flood every 10 years and sometimes very much more often. The natural flow of the river would be sufficient to keep things going very well, provided that the dam were built at the site that I have mentioned, viz. the Havestvale site. This site is a very narrow gorge situated between two kranses and the fall of the river-bed for the 10 miles above this point, is exceptionally low, probably one of the lowest falls in any river-bed in Southern Africa. I have been told on very good authority that a 5 ft. weir at this point could push the water back 10 miles. Because it flows through narrow gorges with no irrigable ground there need be no problem about inundating useful ground. I have pleaded this case many times before in this House and I believe that it is of the utmost importance to the eastern Cape, not only to the development of Grahamstown and the towns I have mentioned, but also to the tourist industry in out coastal resorts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany will undoubtedly understand that I cannot comment now on his speech because I have my own appeal which I should like to make.

It seems to me to be essential at all times to retain the balance between the planning and the execution of large new water schemes of national importance on the one hand, and on the other, the planning and execution of smaller water schemes which are more specifically of local interest, so that the one is not promoted at the expense of the other. Similarly, it is essential that the correct ratio be maintained between the planning and execution of new water schemes and the consolidation of already existing or planned water schemes so that the fullest potential benefit may be drawn from the money already spent on them. As far as irrigation schemes as such are concerned, it seems to me neither meaningful nor fair to bring new regions under irrigation at the cost of already established irrigation areas in which large sums of public and private money have already been invested.

In all these respects the golden rule seems to be to do the one thing and not to neglect the other. Particularly under the prevailing financial circumstances, and the curbing of Government expedition which this entails, it is virtually impossible, however, to act according to this golden rule at all times, and as a result it is necessary to determine priorities and act in accordance with them.

In these circumstances, then, I want to take the liberty of recommending two schemes to be granted priority and to receive priority treatment from the hon. the Minister. The first of these is the proposed Duivenhoks Rural Water Supply Scheme which forms part of the proposed rural water supply scheme in the South Western Districts of the Cape, which will extend from Caledon in the west to the Kafferkuils River in the east.

Official reports on the various schemes were released as long ago as last year. From the report on the proposed Duivenhoks Rural Water Supply Scheme the aim appears to be, and I quote—

The area in question comprises about 198 200 ha, which is subdivided into 263 farms and has an approximate population of 2 200 Whites and 9 250 Coloureds.

Water for domestic use is at present obtained chiefly by collecting rain water from the roofs of buildings. Only a very small percentage of the boreholes bored at great cost to the Government and private individuals have been successful, and even then the water has usually been brackish and unfit for consumption by man or beast. The building of farm dams, too, has been found to be unsatisfactory. Water for man and beast has to be conveyed regularly and at great expense by road.

Dryland crop farming is by far the most important branch of farming in that region, with wheat as the most important cash crop cultivated. Stock-farming which is linked up with field husbandry in order to utilize the old lands, does, however, provide an important supplement to the farming income. The carrying capacity of the natural pasture is relatively low, but since 1960 the introduction of artificial pastures as an integral part of the farming system has rapidly been finding favour. The estimated cost of the proposed scheme is R7 million. However, the scheme will most definitely be invaluable in increasing the optimum carrying capacity of the veld and utilizing the full potential of artificial pastures.

The announcement of the scheme by the hon. S. P. Botha at a meeting of interested persons at Swellendam last year was greeted with spontaneous pleasure. Unfortunately, however, nothing good has yet come of the proposed implementation of this scheme—to the great disappointment of the farmers concerned. I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister on this occasion to afford the execution of this scheme a high priority and also to give serious consideration to its possible extension, provisionally up to the Gouritz River in the east.

In 1973 an auxiliary committee of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council issued the following finding with regard to the provision of water in the Southern Cape—

So states the report of the auxiliary committee.

As far as the agricultural potential of the region is concerned, the Auxiliary Committee mentioned found that the agricultural land in the Southern Cape was still far from being utilized to the optimum extent and that periodic water shortages constituted one of the major reasons for this. At the same time, the municipality of Mossel Bay was constantly having great trouble obtaining sufficient water for domestic and industrial purposes. Unless satisfactory provision for the water requirements of this town are made within the next three or four years, I fear that the city council will be facing a crisis.

In accordance with the recommendation of the Auxiliary Committee, the Keyser Committee was appointed some years ago to give the necessary attention to a comprehensive water plan for the Southern Cape south of the Outeniqua Mountains and east of the Gouritz River. For the reasons mentioned it is a matter of urgency that the report of the Keyser Committee be published and implemented as soon as possible. I ask the hon. the Minister to afford this, too, a high priority.

Mr. Chairman, in contrast to the hon. member for Mossel Bay I do not want to ask for a scheme. I just want to express my gratitude for the fact that the Gamtoos state water scheme is approaching completion. It is now 20 years ago that the Department of Water Affairs made a start on this. The scheme includes the Paul Sauer Dam and a canal system costing more than R25 million. This is truly one of the best and finest schemes that could have been devised. There is sufficient water, so much so that it was possible to make the scheme a multi-purpose one and provide Port Elizabeth with water. This is good fresh water from the Koega Mountains and it is a dam with very little evaporation.

There are many other advantages, too. I think that this is one of the best schemes, and the engineering feat achieved there is worth mentioning. It has been planned in such a way that farmers need only turn a tap to get the water just when they want it. This has been made possible by the provision of balancing dams in the canal system and this really makes it an economic scheme. I want to thank the men who worked on this scheme. I should like to mention a few names, because some of these men who started the construction work there today occupy senior posts in the Department of Water Affairs. I have in mind, for example, Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Claassen, Mr. Wouter van der Merwe and various other men who began their careers there. I do not wish to overlook any of them. These men progressed far in the Department of Water Affairs.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the issue of departmental construction or construction by contract. On the Gamtoos, the construction was carried out departmentally—perhaps it progressed a little more slowly than would have been the case under contract—but on the other hand there are many advantages involved in building departmentally. I hope the department will continue to do so. It establishes a corps of engineers and managerial ability for the department which may stand them in very good stead, particularly if we bear in mind these men whose names I have mentioned. By building departmentally, opportunities are also created for local people who take an interest in this, to work for the Department of Water Affairs or to make a career of water affairs. I am convinced that this practice should be continued with.

What I really want to discuss today is floods. I was very interested to note that the Water Research Commission voted money for research on floods. Two projects have been started, one of which has been allocated to the University of the OFS, which will work on sections of the Riet-Vaal River catchment area, viz. the Hartbees and Seekoei River sections, in which utilization of flood plains and flood damage in general will be studied. Another project has been allocated to the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch. They are going to work on the Sak River, Sundays River, Fish River, Little Fish River and the Koonap River. Here I just want to add that I am in fact a little disappointed that the Gamtoos River has not been included in the projects allocated to the University of Stellenbosch because it would have fitted in very well with the other river courses which are now to be investigated. I trust that the Gamtoos River will also be included in future. Gamtoos River has a specific history as regards floods and the repair of damage. It could have been very valuable to such an investigation.

Looking at floods and their aftermath, I should like to discuss a few aspects. The first is that prevention is better than cure. Provision must be made for flood plains, so that there will be room for flood water. River banks must be protected. Attention must be given to the clearing of river courses and the removal of islands in river courses. Another very important aspect is that the vegetation cover in the catchment areas must be studied. A further point, one which has once again been brought home to us as a result of the floods in the Vaal River, is that urban development must be kept out of the flood plains.

Most important of all, of course, is that we should see to it that we achieve total utilization of the run-off of a river. For that, of course, the only solution is adequate storage dams. In the case of the Gamtoos River in 1971, and now again in the case of the Orange River, we have seen that when there are dams in a river course, they have contributed greatly towards making it possible to control the floodwaters to a certain extent and limiting the damage caused, even though one cannot eliminate it entirely. As far as floods are concerned, I should like to refer to a very interesting piece of history. Only four months after his arrival at the Cape, Jan van Riebeeck began to complain about floods. This is particularly appropriate when one considers how much it has rained in the last few days. We read that Van Riebeeck complained about “de grootste en der swaerste stortregen van der werelt”. Four months after his arrival at the Cape, Jan van Riebeeck wrote the following in his dagverhaal—

I hope I have read it correctly, Sir. It just goes to show that we have always had floods. A thorough study must therefore be made of floods to be able to achieve the greatest possible degree of prevention and control.

Mr. Chairman, anybody who was outside at about five o’clock yesterday evening and saw the “Stortregen” coming down, will understand very well how Van Riebeeck must have felt at that time. I wish to react very briefly to a number of points made by hon. members opposite before I come to the last point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Vryheid dealt with a matter which I think the hon. the Minister is going to have to be very conscious of, when he raised the question of the Josini Dam and the international water. This is a matter which has been raised several times in the past. The Umzimkulu River, for instance, will become part of an international boundary once the Transkei becomes independent, and I can remember the previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, stating that treaties would be entered into with the Transkei and other emergent homelands to allocate the water in such a river, which is in fact international water. Precisely the same situation has now arisen with Mozambique in regard to the Pongola River. I have gone through some of the agreements that have been reached with the Transkei as a result of its impending independence in October, but I could not find anything dealing with the question of water supplies. I notice that there is an agreement on forestry matters, which makes provision for statistics, etc., but as regards the allocation, care and pollution of water, no agreements appear to have been reached. I wonder whether there is such an agreement and whether the Minister can tell us whether he feels that it will be possible to reach some kind of agreement not only with the Transkei, but also with other countries—and here I think particularly of a country like Mozambique.

I raise this question, because it is something which has in the past caused a tremendous amount of disagreement among nations. I believe that the question of agreements over water should be settled at an early stage, so that when those countries become sufficiently developed for this to be a problem, the problem will in fact have been avoided. What the agreements, of course, will mean at such a stage in the future, one cannot be sure of. Then there is the question of the Josini Dam. Let me make the point specifically to the hon. the Minister that we are living in the years of plenty. I can remember clearly a couple of years ago the question being openly debated whether water from the Josini Dam should be taken down the west side of the Lebombo Mountains and run into the Nkuzi River in order to allow St. Lucia to survive, because there was such a drought going on that it was impossible for the lake system to survive because of the very salinity rate. But I read the other day in the paper that the fish are dying in St. Lucia because of low salinity. There is such a lot of rain there that the fish are now actually dying because there is not enough salt in the water. I think we must understand that this country of ours is one of extremes, and we must be very conscious indeed of it. Everybody is now complaining about floods, and that kind of thing, but in another three or four years’ time we will be back where we were before. I mention this, because in some quarters the question of the Spioenkop Dam was raised, as to what the department were doing and what was the purpose of building it there. I remember, as I mentioned earlier, the great shortage of water there was in the Vaal triangle when the Tugela-Vaal scheme was first mooted and when the department built the Spioenkop Dam as being the first stage of the Tugela-Vaal scheme.

It was only later—and I remember very clearly attending the engineers’ conference in Durban in 1969—that Prof. Matthews came along with his new survey of the Tugela basin which opened up all these new possibilities, a most exciting project and the most exciting of possibilities, arising merely from the lie of the land, which enable those rivers to be captured, the rivers which were further towards the coast, and redirected back towards the Tugela. I think the Minister should say to us today what the Spioenkop Dam is intended to do. We know it is an ultimate resource for pumping over the berg and we proposed in the past that there should be a purification station established on the heights above Spioenkop from where purified water could be reticulated to many of the smaller communities in that area. But I think there is a very big question-mark hanging over Spioenkop Dam. I believe there is no such thing as waste stored water in this country. It becomes very vital that we should store it, and I think the Minister owes it to us to say a few words about how he sees this. I think some R22 million was spent at that dam. I think R11 million was estimated for the first stage of the dam, but I would like to know how the Minister sees the future of this particular dam.

Then there is my question about a Select Committee. The hon. member for Fauresmith said it was not really necessary for us to have a Select Committee because the Minister’s department had the engineers who know all about it. We are only “plat boertjies” and would not understand what it was all about. But I want to say that I defy anybody to tell me that this House, when it puts its collective mind to the understanding of the problems which this department faces, over a period of years will not be able to understand them and to make a contribution. This, to my mind, has quite clearly been proved by the Select Committee in Great Britain which dealt with the nuclear energy programme, where they took an ordinary group of laymen, although they were not nuclear scientists, over a period of years by their corporate knowledge, built up by questioning in order to understand the problems, enabled the House and its members to understand what was going on, what they were getting for their money and to make a far more intelligent contribution to the debate as to how that money should be spent. So I raise this in relation to one of these White Papers that we have here, the proposed Komati-Usuthu Rivers link system. That is only one. There is another one here which proposes to link the Vaal River with the Usuthu River, with the idea of providing water for power stations and other purposes. But the White Paper which has been laid before us today replaces one which we had last year totally. It is now a totally new scheme as the result of Sasol 2 being placed there. We were asked last year to vote money and the House voted the money, but I am not sure how many people read the White Paper or how many understood it. It must have been minimal, and here we now have a totally new White Paper before us, so you get all kinds of technical details which to the ordinary member of Parliament is understandable, and here the hon. member for Fauresmith may be correct in saying that we might battle to understand some of the technical details. But let us look at a statement we have in this White Paper, on page 6. I want to read it to illustrate a problem that I face. On this side of the House I am supposed to be dogging the hon. the Minister’s footsteps; I am supposed to be watching him to see that he spends the money correctly. I quote—

That is point number one. There is a pipeline delivering 218 600 m³d to a reservoir of 31 360 m³ capacity; so that reservoir can be filled up six or eight times per day. I quote further—

This reservoir has a capacity of 15 040 m³. As far as I am concerned one can fill that reservoir over and over again. I quote further—

This however, is to be increased to 200 000 m³d because of a recalculation. What, however, were the factors in the recalculation? Why was there a recalculation at all? Was it because of increased pumping power? What was it that made it possible to have 16 000 m³d more delivered? This pipeline then goes to a reservoir at Kriel with a capacity of approximately 682 000 m³. We are voting money for that. When all the members of this House and the hon. Minister have finished speaking we will have voted money for this. However, how are we to understand all these details unless we go to the Secretary’s office one by one. I do not know how many hon. members in this House are interested, but the hon. member for Fauresmith indicated that we have available to us the hon. the Minister, the department and the Secretary. Must about 15 hon. members of this House now go to the Secretary one by one, all asking the same number of questions?

I was not opposing you.

I take it therefore that he who is not against me, is for me. I am therefore quite sure the hon. member will support this plea I am making. We reached some kind of a decision the other day in the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters. We decided that the only solution would be for the groups of the three parties to meet during the recess so that the Secretary and the department could go into these White Papers with us in detail. I ask for the hon. the Minister’s co-operation to set up a system like that so that when we have a White Paper like this we will at least have a basic understanding of what is going on and what this is all about.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fauresmith said to the hon. member for Mooi River: “I was not opposing you.” I should very much like to associate myself with that and agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that we must extend the powers of the present Select Committee on Irrigation Affairs somewhat so that we may consider these matters. Apart from the aspect of careful study, it is as well, in my opinion, that hon. members of this House should be fully informed of the various schemes mentioned in these White Papers. I think it would be as well if we could take a careful look at this during the next session.

On this calm, peaceful, fine and sunny Saturday afternoon I should very much like to…

It is raining cats and dogs outside!

… associate myself with the words of various speakers. As it happens, the kick-off in the game between WP and Transvaal will take place in a few minutes and the Transvalers will simply have to accept the fact that WP is going to win by a very wide margin this afternoon.

That will be the day.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of Water Affairs, Dr. Kriel—or should I rather say, Prof. Kriel. You must excuse us ordinary people, Prof. Kriel; we are still going to call you Mr. Kriel. We have become so used to doing so. We know this hon. Minister and I want to associate myself with what previous speakers have said. This hon. Minister carried out his previous task with the greatest dedication. There is outstanding testimony to what he has achieved, and I am sure that with the staff at his disposal he will be able to perform his task here with great dedication, as he did there. It is undoubtedly appropriate to pay tribute on this occasion to the former hon. Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. S. P. Botha. In his period of service many great things happened in the country in regard to water conservation and water research, and I am of the opinion that it is fitting to convey our thanks to him for everything he has done.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Humansdorp because I, too, want to discuss flood control in the Gamtoos and Groot Rivers. I agree with the words of the hon. member for Humansdorp to the effect that prevention is always better. Mr. Chairman, as you know, fairly serious floods took place in the Gamtoos River in 1961, 1963 and 1971, and to a lesser extent this year as well, although I shall admit that they were perhaps not as serious as they were on the previous occasions. When one analyses the situation which arose particularly in the three major floods, one will find that the Biervlei Dam, which is a flood dam, answered perfectly to the purpose for which it was built, namely flood control. The Biervlei dam held back the water of the Central Karoo perfectly until the water from rains south of the Biervlei Dam had run off.

If, then, it is true that floods occurred in spite of the fact that the Biervlei Dam answered fully to its purpose, one should really seek the origin of the floods elsewhere. I think I am correct in this regard, but the department and I do not agree. After I had held discussions with engineers of the department, I ascertained that they were of the opinion that the floods originated south of Steytlerville. North of Steytlerville, about 43 km below Biervlei, is the mouth of the Du Plessis River. A second river, the mouth of which is below Biervlei—about 108 km below Biervlei—is the Heuningklip River. I happen to live in that region and consequently I can speak with some authority of what occurred there during all three of the floods, and during the 1976 floods. I really want to maintain, without fear of contradiction, that the floods did not originate to the south, but to the north of Steytlerville.

As far as the further planning of flood control is concerned, there are a few aspects which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister as a result of what I have just said. A thorough scientific investigation will have to be carried out to determine whether my theory on the origin of the floods—whether they originate to the north or to the south of Steytlerville—is correct. I think that in the first instance, adequate measuring stations will have to be built on the Du Plessis and Heuningklip Rivers and I think at the town of Steytlerville, too, where the two rivers have already joined up. I wrote to the department last year to ask whether measurements had been carried out and it appeared that the department did in fact have measuring stations in some of the regions, but because it was not possible to effect proper checks, they could not accept the information as authoritative. However, there is one measuring station and this is a station situated a little way above the confluence of the Koega and Groot Rivers.

However, if we are considering the control of floods and the building of a dam on the Groot River, we are running a serious risk. I shall tell hon. members why. As we know, the Biervlei Dam is used for irrigation. The water is released in the river and the farmers abstract the water themselves by means of pumps, etc. As a result of all this irrigation which has taken place since 1961, a drainage of brackish water back into the river has taken place. As a result, before irrigation can take place a heavy flow has to be released in the river so that the brackishness may first be flushed out Consequently, if a dam were to be built in the Groot River for the further control of floods in the Gamtoos, the question arises: What is going to be done as regards this quantity of water with which the river has to be flushed out? I think that major problems could arise out of this. That is why it is my opinion that the investigation into flood control should be carried out in both the Du Plessis and the Heuningklip Rivers because I am quite convinced that it is these rivers that cause the floods. This could also entail a further advantage for us. A vast area of agricultural land of good potential is situated below both of those rivers. It could then be made a multipurpose scheme like Biervlei with regard to flood control and irrigation.

On the other hand, Steytlerville, a small town situated on the banks of the Groot River, which, as it happens, celebrates its centenary this year, is still without water. It has no water scheme in spite of the fact that for years every effort has been made to have a water scheme for this town. I believe that if dams are built on these two rivers it will be possible to provide not only Steytlerville, but the vast area of irrigable land in that town, with water. I therefore want to maintain that we can achieve two aims. I do not want to sound very scientific about it now, but as a practical farmer and as a person who lives in that region, I want to give the assurance that if the Du Plessis and Heuningklip Rivers are fully tamed, there will never again be floods in the Gamtoos. It will be an economic utilization, too, because as I have already said, there is high-potential land below Biervlei. I want to conclude by saying that it would serve a further purpose. The disturbing amount of soil erosion along the Groot River may be combated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will excuse me if I do not react to his statements. I believe that his appeals will be attended to.

I should very much like to associate myself with various other speakers who conveyed good wishes to the hon. the Minister on this occasion. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has just mentioned here the fine achievements of the hon. the Minister in his previous portfolio. We are grateful to be able to see him at the head of this important department in view of the difficulties which that portfolio entailed and the exceptional success he achieved with it. The splendid recognition afforded the Secretary of the department must probably be an inspiration to many young men in engineering. Here we have a person who started at the lowest rung as regards education in the department and by hard work achieved the finest, the highest in the department. But he has also had the highest recognition from outside the department. We are proud of this boy who progressed until he became secretary of the department. Our prayer is that his achievements will encourage other young men, too, to make this department their career.

When I think of the heights achieved by the Secretary, I want to thank the department for the fine progress made with the Orange/Fish River scheme, particularly the project which extends to below the Elandsdrif diversion weir, the Cookhouse tunnel and the canal system below this tunnel. I should like to express the hope that this work being done on this project at Somerset East will be proceeded with at full speed in spite of the limitation of funds. We know that that undertaking at Somerset East was substantially handicapped by flood damage, particularly that of 1974. Nevertheless I want to express the hope that the canal system which leads to the Mentz Dam will be completed without delay.

As far as the supply of water to the lower Bushman’s River valley is concerned, I should like to associate myself with the appeal made here by the hon. member for Albany. It is true that he is an hon. member of the Opposition, but with regard to so important an aspect of that region, I have no hesitation in supporting him in this. The hon. member also referred to a number of small towns in that region where expansion is being hampered today by a lack of water. It is undoubtedly worth reconsidering the problem of the water supply to that region. I have in mind in particular the possibility raised by the hon. member of a diversion weir at the farm of Harvest Vale. I myself was in the lower Bushmans River valley before. I can therefore agree with the hon. member that the place mentioned is eminently suited to the construction of a weir in the lower Bushmans River. It is true that in many respects the Eastern Cape is experiencing a water shortage and if at all possible we should like to ensure that a large number of pleasant coastal towns in that region will not be lost to the tourist industry as a result of a deficient supply of water. If adequate water can be provided there, the tourist industry there will flourish.

The increasing population growth in our cities is something which deserves consideration. It is estimated that by the year 2000 about 80% of our total population will be living in the urban areas; 80% as against the present 48%. In other words, the existing water supply will have to be utilized far better than is at present the case so as to effect a greater saving of water. If irrigation water is used more thriftily, then—as the hon. member for Piketberg rightly remarked this morning—this would entail a saving of 11,5 million m³ of water. Savings by way of water reclamation and by the re-use of water can provide us with an additional water supply of about 7,2 milliard m³. It is true that we can supplement our water supply by means of saving and by means of improved utilization of water.

I want to dwell briefly on the issue of the reclamation and the re-use of water. Various research projects with a view to the reclamation and re-use of water are already in progress. However, I should like to confine myself specifically to what is being done with regard to the pollution of water by industrial effluent, and wool-scouring effluent in particular. I am fully aware of the fact that wool-scouring prior to export in this country is going to increase steadily. This is essential because the shipping expenses of wool have risen so sharply that they are almost getting out of hand. For this reason, it has become necessary to institute a careful investigation into the process of scouring wool for export because this results in industrial effluent which can cause many problems. It is encouraging to note that the report of the Water Research Commission makes mention of the fact that attention is already being devoted to this matter. However this matter will have to be dealt with with greater haste in the future.

What is also important is the fact that in the processing of hides, the substantial precipitation of salt which this entails, prevents the effluent from being separated out by the existing sewerage system, as is usually the case. The high salt content of the effluent in question can create vast problems, particularly in water-rich regions, and such a practice ought therefore not to be continued with. While I am referring to the growth that will have to occur with regard to the scouring of wool and the tanning of hides, this is something which really deserves reinvestigation because it poses such a grave threat of pollution. In this regard I have in mind in particular the pollution that occurs at present in the Swartkops River at Uitenhage near Port Elizabeth. It occurs to such an extent that the water of the Swartkops River has become virtually unusable. This gives us an indication of the effect which the effluent water from the wool-scouring mill at Uitenhage has on the aquatic environment in the Swartkops River. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister that research in this regard be carried out more rapidly because this industry—the scouring of wool and the processing of hides—is going to result in more pollution by industrial effluent.

Mr. Chairman, I too should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the former Minister of Water Affairs for the fact that his door was always open to me and my people and also for the fact that from time to time I was in a position to visit the various projects in my constituency in his company. Furthermore, I have always, and under all circumstances, been kept informed of the development of the projects and I thank him for that, too. On behalf of myself and my people I also want to extend a welcome to the new Minister, and we wish him all of the best on his appointment as Minister of Water Affairs. I already know the Minister to be a hard worker and a dedicated person and I look forward to co-operation. On this occasion allow me also to convey my sincere congratulations to the Secretary, Dr. Kriel, who received an honorary doctor’s degree on 2 April this year at a graduation ceremony of the University of the Witwatersrand. He has also been appointed from the beginning of this year as an honorary professor at the University of Pretoria in the civil engineering faculty. I am very pleased that such an able person has been honoured in such an exceptional way.

The utilization of water for irrigation purposes plays a strategic role in the production of food. It is calculated that at present, 75% of the total water consumption of our country is devoted to food production in the Republic. It is further calculated that the consumption of water for irrigation purposes is increasing by about 3% per annum and that the consumption of water for industrial purposes is increasing by 7% per annum. If we do a few calculations, this means that in 24 years’ time—viz. in the year 2000—only 45% of our total available water supply will be devoted to food production.

At present about 25 million people are living within the borders of the Republic. Looking at the population increase, we find that the number of Whites is increasing by 2% per annum, Asiatics by 2,56%, the Coloureds by 2,69% and the Bantu by 2,72%—an average increase of 2,6% per annum for all the peoples within the borders of our country. This growth rate is 0,2% higher than the growth rate in the rest of Africa. At this rate of population growth it means that in 44 years the Republic will have to provide 80 million people with food. By that time the total population of Africa will be 800 million as against the present 400 million. The Republic will be called upon to an increasing extent to provide food not only for Africa, but for the rest of the world as well.

Only a third of our country has a rainfall of more than 500 mm per annum and only 15% of the land available for agricultural purposes is worth cultivating. Only 3% of this land has a really high potential. In view of this one becomes concerned when one looks at the future. To be in a position to feed our population in 20 years’ time we shall have to give urgent priority to an irrigation research programme. To sum up, I want to say briefly that the following things will have to be considered under the irrigation research plan. In the first place, efficiency in the existing irrigation techniques will have to be considered. In the second place efficiency in the existing irrigation equipment will have to be considered. In the third place, the availability of manpower, not only for irrigation research, but also for irrigation extension, will have to be investigated. In the fourth place, research will have to be carried out with regard to the deficient data relating to the water requirements of various types of plant and crop under various conditions.

With little water available we shall have to ensure an efficient production per unit of water. Our time is limited. If we want to feed a growing population, we shall have to make better use of the resources that already exist and we shall have to develop all suitable land where water is available. One such place where suitable land and water is available is at Oviston on the banks of the H. F. Verwoerd Dam near Venterstad. Speaking of the Verwoerd Dam, I could just mention that there are sometimes rumours that the H. F. Verwoerd Dam is rapidly silting up. I just want to point out that I inquired from the department and the department informed me that it would take more than a 100 years before the dam’s storage capacity would be halved as a result of silting up. It is estimated that at Oviston there is about 3 000 ha of suitable irrigable land which already belongs to the State. I believe that all the land at Oviston could be irrigated with little alteration of the existing pumping system. Virtually all the land can be irrigated by gravity. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to institute an investigation as soon as possible into the possibility of making water from the Verwoerd Dam available on this land. I believe that this irrigation scheme, which would certainly not be a major scheme, would not be an expensive one either. Raw water pumps have already been installed at Oviston. I believe that additional pumps could be installed at a relatively low cost. Furthermore, there is a pipeline over 90 km which conveyed water to Venterstad, Midshaft and Teubes and which can be re-used in the scheme. The necessary water purification works are already available, because purified water was provided during the building of the tunnel at Oviston itself and at Venterstad, Midshaft and Teubes. I believe that sufficient purified water will be available for the 50 to 60 families that could be placed here. I want to repeat that the scheme ought not to be expensive. The land furthest away is 6 km from Oviston. Escom power is available in this region and the municipality of Venterstad is to negotiate with the department one of these days for the purchase of Oviston, so as to incorporate it in the municipal area of Venterstad, and I think that if prompt attention is given to this project it will be possible to sell some of the houses, together with the irrigation plots, to the new owners. New houses on expensive irrigation land need not therefore be built. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter urgently because I believe that we have here an opportunity to do something about the still depopulated platteland even though it is only to establish 50 to 60 families there.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Water Affairs. During the past few years I have learned to know him better, particularly during the consolidation of the homelands, and I found that he was a man of conviction and knowledge. He is tough and can work hard, but is also difficult to convince if one argues with him about a standpoint. Nevertheless I found that he was a person who was open to conviction. I believe with the assistance of the Secretary, Mr. Kriel, and the other officials, he will leave his mark with regard to the running of this extremely important department.

I should like to submit for the hon. Minister’s consideration a few matters concerning my own constituency. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that more attention be devoted in particular to the building of roads and bridges at water schemes and that cognizance be taken of raised earth walls next to bridges. These walls cause an unnecessary heightening of the flood levels near cultivated fields, and are dangerous. Some of these road walls are up to a kilometre long and this can cause tremendous damming up and flooding of cultivated fields. Cognizance should also be taken of the space under bridges which is too narrow and is insufficient when major floods occur because it is too narrow to let the floodwaters through. Two such modern, newly built bridges over the Marico River—at the Marico Bosveld scheme—were damaged by the 1972 flood. They were repaired at heavy expense, but were again damaged during the recent floods and will again have to be repaired at heavy expense. I also want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the old existing dam walls and weirs in the same scheme. These walls were built years ago before the scheme was completed and have fallen into disuse. As a result the river silts up, and when there is the slightest flooding, water is pushed up over the farmer’s cultivated fields and causes serious damage as a result. The local farmers’ association declares that the walls are not used in the slightest and ought to be removed, in spite of the fact that they still appear as rights on the transfer documents of some farmers.

The last important scheme I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is the Eerstepoort scheme in the Groot Marico River which flows through the far northwestern bushveld of the Marico and Thabazimbi districts. I am grateful to know that the topographical survey of the dam terrain has now been completed and that the test boring on the foundations has also been concluded. I am also very grateful that it is evident from the provisional investigation that a dam capable of providing at least 10,44 million cubic metres of water per annum can be built. Because I have for many years devoted my energies to convincing the department that that poort lends itself to the construction of a dam and that outstanding cultivable land with a high agricultural potential is situated lower down along the Marico River in the northern part of the bushveld of Marico, in the Derdepoort and in the Dwaalboom region of the Thabazimbi district, I am so much the more grateful and will regard the building of a dam there as the realization of a long-cherished ideal. The farmers of this bushveld region have for many years been dreaming about the possibility of a dam in the Eerstepoort. Over the past 30 to 40 years, since I returned to Marico after a long absence, and began to concern myself with agricultural matters, the farmers and the agricultural unions have told me: “A dam must definitely be built.” It is the right place. The terrain lends itself to it. The agricultural potential is there.” For example, I have before me a memorandum submitted to Minister Botha in 1968 during a visit I arranged in order to convince him of the suitability of the terrain, and if the hon. officials look at other memoranda compiled in the past, they will note that the requests were in the first place orientated to irrigation and in the second place to water for the watering of stock by way of pipelines. Now the circumstances have changed, because once the land has been purchased for Bophuthatswana for consolidation purposes, the entire dam terrain will fall within the Bantu area. According to a statement by the Minister, 9 million cubic metres per annum of the dam’s supply will be required for Bantu development. I have no objection to this, and we realized from the outset that the Bantu would require a substantial quantity of the water. Now that the capital of Bophuthatswana is being built in that vicinity, it is also to be understood that a large quantity of water will have to be diverted there for the development of the capital as a Bophuthatswana growth point. However, I am concerned about the possibility that very little or perhaps no water can now be made available to the farmers.

I want to emphasize the motivation of the original requests submitted by me personally and by the farmers’ unions that took the initiative. They compiled various memoranda, sent deputations to the Minister and advocated the construction of an irrigation scheme. The change to which I referred has now been brought about as a result of the greater needs of the Bantu, but I do want to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this connection. In his letter to me he mentioned that it would be possible to consider building the dam a great deal bigger. My plea is that the needs of the Whites should also be considered and that adequate water for the original purpose as requested be made available when the dam is completed. If this is not done, there will be a great deal of disappointment among the farmers and bodies that have been devoting their energies to this over the years and have been looking forward to the day when a dam would be built there. I therefore want to ask that sufficient water eventually be made available to them, too, for the purposes for which they originally requested it.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place it is a great pleasure for me to express my appreciation here today to those hon. members on both sides of the House who congratulated me on the position which I now occupy and which, I must say, is far more peaceful, yet, as the hon. member for Mooi River said, no less challenging than my previous portfolio was. This matter is one in which I have been interested ever since my young days. I shall simply have to blow away the dust a little and make a study of certain matters. But it is a great pleasure for me, together with hon. members of this House, and my department, to give thought to the problems as far as the provision of water is concerned. I shall try, Sir, not to speak for too long, although I want to reply as clearly as possible to the arguments of hon. members. I want to express my particular appreciation, firstly, for the congratulations and the good wishes. As in the past I undertake, together with the department, to do my best.

Before I continue I want to dwell for a moment on the department and in particular express my appreciation to my predecessor. In the eight years during which he was Minister of Water Affairs he worked with great dedication and zeal and with much success and he gave his attention, together with the department, to the question of the provision of water, which is of such great importance to our country. Since I am discussing the department I also want to associate myself with the congratulations which were extended to the Secretary for Water Affairs who, as has already been mentioned, received an honorary doctorate from the University of the Witwaters-rand, who was appointed honorary professor at the University of Pretoria, and who was also vice-president of the International Commission for Large Dams. With the awarding of an honorary doctorate to Mr. Kriel, it was the first time that such a distinction had ever been awarded to a serving Secretary of a department. I think it is an exceptional milestone and something which is of great significance to this department to have a scientist of that format.

†In this connection I would like to read from a report of the conference of that commission that took place in Mexico this year. Unfortunately the Mexican Government refused permission for South African delegates to attend that meeting, but what transpired there is very encouraging. I want to read what the representative from the U.S.A. said in connection with South Africa. He, firstly, drew attention to the fact that South Africa stood down last year in favour of Austria at the 45th executive meeting, and then said—

That was said on the question where the next meeting of this body should take place in 1978. He continued—

This is what the American representative said, and I think this is really encouraging, to find a meeting of scientists were scientific matters are discussed by scientists from all over the world, paying tribute to our people, although they were not represented there. I must tell Parliament, Sir, that it was decided that the next meeting of Icold would be held in South Africa, and I think we should congratulate the Secretary and the other representatives from South Africa on this achievement.

I further want to point out that various papers were read on behalf of South Africa, and I briefly want to refer to them. There was a paper called “Slime Dams for gold-mine drainings and other residues in S.A.” prepared by Messrs. Donaldson, Adamson and Clausen. There was another paper called “Rapid site appraisal for dam foundations by dual mechanical classification” by a gentleman whose name I can hardly pronounce, Mr. Z. T. Bieniawski, and Mr. Orr, the latter name thankfully being more straightforward. There was also a paper called “The influence of changing land use on the inflow to reservoirs” by Miss Joan Whitmore of the department and Mr. Reid, director and senior hydrologist of the Hydrological Research Institute, Department of Water Affairs. Another paper I should mention was called “Reservoir sediment deposition rates” by Mr. Roseboom, and another one titled “The effect of forests on run-off” by Mr. Nänni, who is well known, as are some of the others I have mentioned. I am very proud to be able to stand here today and congratulate all these people, and not only those from State departments, but also those from private enterprise who participated and really brought honour to South Africa by virtue of the quality and dedication with which they performed their duties as scientists.

*Therefore I want to congratulate Mr. Kriel and his co-workers on the fact that this international commission decided to hold its next conference here in South Africa. I just want to mention here that South Africans have been nominated to six of the fifteen committees of this commission. This is a great achievement! I want to content myself with this, and now wish to say a few things in general about the activities of the department.

The question of engineers was raised. This is of course a department which requires highly qualified people and once again I want to pay tribute to my predecessor for the efforts which he made to recruit engineers. I understand he even went so far that the Public Service Commission objected to certain things which he did. I am sorry that this happened, but I nevertheless want to give the assurance that I am going to follow in his footsteps to try, in conjunction with my department, to find new ways and means of attracting young people to the department. What we are dealing with of course is the erosion of manpower. This creates problems for the department. When the people return after having completed their studies they remain in the department for three or four years and then, in quite considerable numbers, seek greener pastures. This is a great pity, but we know it has to happen. It remains a pity though, that there should be so many of them who leave the department. This is a matter which gives rise to concern and about which something further should perhaps be said.

As far as the general policy is concerned, I am continuing to expand this department, so that this very important task of water provision—as several hon. members indicated—can be carried out in the interests of our country and our people so that we are able to provide the necessary water.

Mention was made of the Water Research Commission, which was also established under my predecessor. However, this commission has only been in existence for a few years. Quite a number of the hon. members quoted from the report of this commission. This commission is of course engaged in very important work for my department and for the country in general. I hope that it will also be able to attract scientists from abroad to carry out investigations. The commission’s approach is to try to co-ordinate research and to bring scientists from abroad to this country for this purpose to go into various aspects of pollution, etc. Recently we held a conference on pollution in Durban and quite a number of foreign visitors were present. I had the privilege of attending that conference for a short while. Recently, during discussions that were held in Nelspruit, where a private project is being carried out in my own constituency, I discussed weather modification with foreign experts. Hon. members touched on many facets of the conservation of water to which attention has to be given, and I think that the work of the commission will be watched with great interest. On my part I shall do everything to encourage the zeal of these people to solve our problems. However, I think that hon. members will agree with me that this commission has already covered a wide field in the few years of its existence and that it has already done important work. In addition, the commission has involved a large number of people in its activities, particularly persons attached to our universities. In fact, the commission has tried to locate expertise, wherever it is available, so as to apply it to carry out this important task.

As regards the question of water utilization, I want to make a few general remarks. The agricultural utilization is at present 75% of all water that is used. Pursuant to the excellent contributions which members on both sides of the House made to the debate, I want to tell hon. members that I am concerned about the standard of water utilization in agriculture. I am really concerned about it, and I have already discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture. I should very much like my department and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to co-operate very closely in future. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is present, and I want to thank him for having opened the course offered by my department this year for private undertakings designing and making irrigation systems available which also supply information to other persons who require such information. I want to hold out the prospect of our co-operating very closely in applying irrigation water as beneficially as possible. As the hon. member for Kimberley North said, we have reached the stage where the largest irrigation scheme in the country, which cost R17 million to establish is faced with a threat. My department alone has to spend R8 million to save the scheme, and when all the discharge facilities have been completed, it will cost the department an additional R8 million, or even R10 million so that the same amount which was originally spent to build to the scheme might have to be spent again in order to save it. I know that farmers are trying as far as possible to improve their standards of irrigation, and that the excessive rains have contributed to the situation which arose as a result of the raising of the water table, but I want to make it very clear that unfortunately poor irrigation practices also played a major part, not only there, but elsewhere as well.

I do not want to waste any time and I therefore want to begin to reply briefly to the various points raised by hon. members in the course of the debate. I want to assure hon. members that their contributions were of a high standard. I can recall that I attended the debate here ten years ago, and when I listened to what hon. members said here this afternoon it was very clear that all of them had made a thorough study of the subject. Actually, one must make a study of the subject, for one has only ten minutes in which to say what one wants to say. It is only the hon. member for Marico who is capable of asking for quite a number of things in ten minutes and motivating them to a reasonable extent. I want to assure hon. members that we are living in exceptionally fortunate circumstances today. My department informs me that I can state here with a reasonable degree of certainty that never in the history of the country since the original settlement has there been so much water in the country as there is at this time. This is a very fortunate state of affairs, and before the onset of the winter rains, virtually all the dams in the northern areas and in the eastern Cape were 100% full, while the supply in dams in the Southern and Western Cape was augmented to a tremendous extent during the past few weeks. We therefore find ourselves in an exceptionally fortunate position. Before everyone here I want to express my profound gratitude for this gift from our good Lord. But although we are experiencing these exceptionally fortunate circumstances, in which we have more water available in our dams than ever before, it does not mean that there are no problems awaiting us, and that we can allow people to go to meet the future with any complacency. I find that people are already saying that the dry periods are gone forever, that the rivers have for the past few years now been flowing regularly, and that new schemes should be tackled and that water should be made more widely available. But we shall have to think twice as far as water utilization is concerned, for the dry years await us.

In this regard I just want to mention that it is very interesting to find if one visits the dolomitic regions in the vicinity of Vryburg and Kuruman, as we have already done this year, that the water table in that vast area is almost on the surface. It is ironic to see a windmill with only its top portion above the water in an area where a windmill was intended to pump out water. Now it is standing there and serves no useful purpose. In my opinion there is a tremendous reservoir, and if one were, in addition, to consider the Vaal/ Gamagara scheme, which must in fact supply water to Sishen, one finds that there are clear streams of water flowing from Sishen into the Vaal River. I am merely mentioning this to indicate what extremes of climate occur.

I come now, in the first place, to the hon. member for Mooi River. I want to thank him for an exceptionally positive contribution. His contribution is usually positive, if he is not talking politics. I want to thank him very much. He referred to the points which he described as the basic policy of his party. I do not think that we have any fault to find with them. I have heard them before. I had the privilege of hearing the hon. member for South Coast stating these points in this House, and I think they are fundamentally sound and correct. The other matter which he raised was the question of the Select Committee and the way the White Papers are dealt with. I want to tell the hon. member that I am in full agreement with him that we should arrange to make the White Papers available earlier. I have already asked my department to do this, so that hon. members of the Select Committee can make as thorough as possible a study of them. I think it is important for this House that there is a group of hon. members who understand the technical way in which these matters are set out. I therefore think that we should make time available. The Secretary is not always available. He is a busy man; not only is he a good scientist, but he also has to be a good administrator and visit many areas. If it is possible we can arrange a meeting and bring senior engineers down from Pretoria to discuss these matters with hon. members on the committee. I therefore think that we should make a start with this early next year. I shall be of assistance in this regard. Since I have now indicated how busy the Secretary is, and have paid him a compliment, and quite rightly so, for the exceptional achievements which he has accomplished as a scientist, as well as Secretary, I also have to apologize now. Someone asked where the annual report was. The Secretary told me that it was with him for a long time and that he was unable to complete it in time. It was in fact his fault. I am apologizing on his behalf, and I think that hon. members will pardon him under the circumstances. It is very easy for the department to tell an MP, or whoever makes inquiries, that the report is with the Minister and that all he has to do is sign it. This time the Secretary admitted candidly that he had had the report and that it would be made available to hon. members shortly. I am apologizing on behalf of the Secretary, and for my own part as well, for the delay.

The hon. member also discussed the irrigation scheme at Upington. I want to tell him briefly that there was in fact a write-off of certain amounts. However, there was no write-off of capital investments, nor of maintenance costs, operating costs, and so on. Unfortunately there are socio-economic problems as well, problems which are frequently caused by unforeseen circumstances. There were, for example, the tremendous floods of 1974; a phenomenon which repeated itself earlier this year. When such a thing happens it is not possible to levy the rates which people actually have to pay on their land. However, it is very clear that positive attention will have to be given to this matter in future. The hon. member also referred to the system of linking rivers. I do not want to elaborate on this except to say that it is the general policy of my department to don conduct planning in such a way that rivers can be linked. That, then, is my reply to the questions asked by that hon. member. Hon. members must please be content with my not going into all the aspects mentioned in detail. Some of the subjects which were touched upon here are so interesting that I should dearly like to have a long discussion on them. Unfortunately the time for this is not available today.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Piketberg very sincerely for the kind words he addressed to me and to the Secretary of my department. The hon. member also made an appeal for the linking of rivers. Inter alia, he mentioned the Olifants River. This is a matter which definitely requires attention. If I may express my own opinion, I would say that we will have to proceed very circumspectly in that case. The Mitchells Pass dam is closely linked to the Bree River, and when one does anything that affects the Bree River, one does so to the hon. member for Worcester. Therefore very circumspect action will have to be taken in regard to that matter. But as far as I am concerned, it is necessary that something be done.

The hon. member raised another important matter. This is the question of the desalination of sea-water. In reply to that question I want to inform the hon. member that my department has already devoted attention to this matter. In addition the Department has already contacted Eskom in regard to the possible inclusion of a plant for the desalination of sea-water at nuclear power stations. Unfortunately it is found that the inclusion of such plants in, the first two phases of the nuclear power project will not be possible. Negotiations with a view to the inclusion of desalination plants in the third phase of the nuclear power project—that of the Koeberg Power Station—are already in progress.

The hon. member also referred to engineers. I have already replied in part to that question during the general discussion with which I introduced my speech. However, I want to quote figures. Owing to the efforts made by my predecessor and by my department approximately 50 engineers completed their studies by the end of 1975. This is a matter which is of great importance to my department. After the adjustments in remuneration of July 1974 the department lost twelve engineers. During the period April to December 1975 the department lost 45 engineers. This year the department gained 50 engineers, but after having lost 45 the previous year. These were all people who left the service of the department after only three or four years—just when they were beginning to become really useful. It is a pity that we are losing these people, and an investigation will have to be instituted into what would possibly be done to make a post in the department more attractive for engineers.

Engineering is an exceptionally difficult field of study; probably one of the most difficult. Some of our most competent people, people who are able to render the most valuable service, are lost to the department. It is therefore necessary for attention to be given to this matter, and an attempt will be made to eliminate the present erosion of human material—our best human material. The department will do everything possible in future to retain the services of people of that high calibre.

The hon. member for Orange Grove raised quite a number of matters. Actually he referred to an article in The Star which he read several weeks ago. To a great extent all his questions stemmed from that article. Unfortunately it was a very misleading article. The article was published on 8 May 1976. I expected some members to take a short cut, particularly hon. members of the Opposition. I expected them, if they did not have any real criticism at their disposal, to see what the newspapers were saying, and what the newspapers were telling them to say.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the article written by James Clark. In my opinion it was a very unfair article because it referred to certain matters which did not affect the department. Firstly, the question of the Josini dam. He alleged that he had asked on three previous occasions and had not yet received a reply. I received an elucidation in regard to the Josini dam from the department and perhaps I should repeat what my predecessor said last year, viz. that the official name of the dam is the Pongola Poort dam. If we all used the same name it would prevent any misunderstanding in regard to this matter.

†Regarding an agreement with Swaziland, the position is that permission was obtained in principle to build this dam in 1967. Final proposals for compensation have been under discussion for a considerable period and agreement on details have not yet been reached. Regarding compensation, the main issue, agreement has been reached, but the details in connection with that have not been implemented. We have reached the stage now where they can be implemented. That is the position at present. I do hope that this replies to the hon. member’s question. There are other questions regarding our neighbouring territories and this makes it a bit difficult to go into detail and I do want hon. members to realize that. While on this question, maybe I ought to reply to the hon. member for Mooi River as he referred to the Oxbow scheme and the fact that I was in Lesotho the day before yesterday and yesterday in connection with matters—as he said—in connection with water. The only thing that I can say in this regard is that it depends on Lesotho, as far as we are concerned. We have had discussions in the past and we are now waiting on a reaction from them. However, as far as the Oxbow scheme is concerned, it was a very small scheme and now we intend planning a much larger scheme. We cannot proceed with a scheme as small as the Oxbow, one which would only have delivered about 6 or 8 cumec. What we need now is about 40 cumec. However, it is up to them to come forward and we certainly shall negotiate with them, and not only with them, but with other countries as well. We have certain plans in mind regarding this.

*I hope the hon. member for Orange Grove will accept the position now that there are minor points which still remain to be cleared up and that all the particulars have not yet been worked out. However, a decision has been reached on the general principle.

It has already taken ten years.

We did not have any particular difficulties. The hon. member says it has already taken ten years. That may be true, but the position is that it is still not possible to use that water. In the initial stages there was also the question of pumping cement into the one flank of the wall. The canal system has not yet been completed either. When the dam was commenced it was foreseen that we would be able to use it soon, but it subsequently appeared that it was not all that essential, and that we should develop in other areas as well. I agree with the hon. member that it might perhaps be possible to finalize it more quickly, but when what is involved is negotiations with foreign states and with other people it is not always easy to finalize matters. The case of Maputo was mentioned and I want to say that we have held talks in the past. We must see what is going to happen in future. At present nothing is happening in Mozambique as far as negotiations of this kind are concerned, and from where we were before, we do not know whether we will be able to build on that in future. These continue to be difficult matters to deal with. People may adopt a critical attitude in this regard if they wish, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that I shall devote my personal attention to this matter, particularly as far as Swaziland is concerned. I must also tell the hon. member that I have already had submission in this regard this year, and in cases where a minor problem arose and this has been referred back, it takes a long time to return so that one can dispose of it. If it becomes necessary and we really need the water, attention will have to be given to the matter.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to the H. F. Verwoerd Dam, and one of the hon. members on this side of the House replied that half of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam would, according to calculations, be silted up after 100 years. That is correct. We do not take sounding there every year to establish how much silt has been deposited, because it is a comprehensive and a major task. However, the department does this from time to time and the information is made available. In a few years’ time soundings will again be taken to establish how much silt has been deposited, and then, on the basis of events, further particulars in this regard will be made available.

The hon. member for Fauresmith referred to very interesting matters. He asked for research to be carried out in target areas, for example Vaalharts and the northern bank of the Orange River. I think we shall have to bear in mind the need to establish, since we now have new areas here, whether that water cannot be utilized in a way which creates fewer problems. He said that this might be a matter which could more appropriately be dealt with by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, but I want to give him the assurance that we will work in very close co-operation with him, as I have already indicated. He also referred to the White Papers which I have already discussed, and then he, too, mentioned the possible saving which could be effected by means of irrigation if the Water Research Commission could undertake certain research. He was particularly concerned about the practices of water utilization, and I think this is also a matter to which I have referred in general. I do not want to be critical, but we shall definitely have to look into these matters.

The hon. member for Vryheid also conveyed his congratulations and gave us a few details concerning Josini and also asked a question in regard to the Pongola River. He has an exceptional knowledge of that area and the various rivers there. I just want to point out briefly that the Pongola Poort Dam is going to fall in KwaZulu. The water from that dam will be capable of irrigating 35 000 ha of land. I think that the hon. member for Orange Grove has also discussed this in previous speeches. I want to make it quite clear that all of that land is very suitable for irrigation. Actually 50 000 ha below that dam are suitable for irrigation. In the future KwaZulu it will be possible to irrigate 35 000 ha from that dam. The other water in that river is being kept available for the land above the Pongola Poort Dam. In other words, water will have to be made available there in future—and that is what the hon. member wanted to know. The opinion of the Department appears to be that the people there are being reasonably well provided from the natural flow. Occasionally they have minor problems, but the run-off from that river is so consistent that the absence of a dam does not cause them any problems. I established this as well from the department. They say that many farmers there are better off without a dam than other farmers with a dam. [Interjection.] An hon. member wants to interrupt the course of business by telling me that the score is 24—7 in favour of the Transvaal. It seems to me I have more Western Province supporters within this House than outside, for I had many speakers from the Western Province this afternoon. I must thank them for doing so.

Surely this is a debate on water!

The hon. the Leader of the House says that we are dealing with a water debate, and therefore I am returning to it. I want to inform the hon. member for Vryheid that the natural flow of the Pongola River is of such a nature that a dam will not or cannot be built there immediately. However, it will be borne in mind. The important point is that a portion of the water in the Pongola River should be kept available, instead of irrigating the entire 50 000 ha in KwaZulu.

The hon. member for Benoni also referred to the Pongola Poort Dam, and he discussed the flood waters from that dam. He also referred to the use of the land in the vicinity. There is a research station which is trying to establish what crops can be cultivated there. I want to inform the hon. member that that land is suitable for a great variety of crops. I made inquiries from the sugar industry. They ceased their activities there after a few years. I asked them whether they did not want to continue their activities, and they said it was quite unnecessary. It is very clear that they do not have any problems. Apparently the whole world is suitable for sugar. They know what varieties will grow there. Consequently they are not doing any further research. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services also commenced certain trials there. Before I left the Department of Bantu Administration I asked them to continue the research. Various varieties of nuts and tropical fruit can be grown there. The ground and the climate is also suitable for various other crops. However, there are problems with wind, and so on. But I do not think that the hon. member need have any doubts about the actual value of that land. To tell the truth my department has drawn attention to the fact that, taking the cost of the project and the quantity of land under irrigation into consideration, it is going to be the cheapest scheme that has ever been tackled. It is an exceptionally good scheme. The eventual cost will be approximately R35 million or R36 million, after the canals have also been completed. I do not know whether this is entirely correct, but I am of the opinion that the dam only cost approximately R20 million. In spite of these relatively low costs a tremendous amount of land will be under irrigation after completion of the project. Therefore the dam has exceptional potential.

The hon. member for Benoni wanted to know how matters stood in regard to the annual flood in the areas. He wanted to know how the flood was going to be controlled, and whether the area would be inundated once every year. In the past the flood resulted in the water streaming into the pans. The hon. member mentioned that the local population make their living from fishing. The flood therefore serves a special purpose there, the hon. member wanted to know what control would be exercised in future. At this stage I just want to say that the entire ecology of the area will be borne in mind. However, I cannot tell the hon. member that the dam will be opened on certain occasions so that the plains can be inundated and so that the natural habitat and the practices in the area can be continued. That might be risky. However, if circumstances allow this could be done occasionally. But I do not want to commit myself in this regard. It is an interesting matter which the hon. member raised. But everything depends on the industry and the available quantity of water. Nevertheless, I think the hon. member will agree with me that the ecology in the area and the practice of the inhabitants of making a living from fishing will be affected by the construction of the dam. I am certain that the hon. member appreciates the economic value of the fact that 35 000 ha of land can be placed under irrigation. Although we should not always have regard only to the economic value of a project, the economic value of this project weighs far more heavily than the simple economy of fishing when the river floods its banks. He also raised the question of subterranean water and research in that regard. This is a matter which is of course receiving attention. I just want to mention that this research project, according to which we want to store both purified sewage water and flood waters below the sand in the Cape Flats, is a very important one with great possibilities. However, I cannot tell him when it will be possible to incorporate the flood waters from rivers. Research is in progress, and we hope that it will be of very great value. In this regard I just want to mention that the hon. member said that we should build more dams to store water in the flood years. This is, of course, impossible.

The hon. member for Albany referred to a five-foot wall with water backing up for ten miles. Five foot is approximately the evaporation in that area, and that water will evaporate every year. If we can find places, as the hon. member referred to, where we can store water underground, it would be a good thing. Our cheap dam sites have virtually all been utilized; we do not have any more, and it is no use constructing large dams only to have all the water evaporate in the dry years. I wish to express the hope that we shall have research into ground-water and that we might perhaps find dolomitic formations where, instead of building another dam along the Orange River, we will be able to build a large weir for diverting flood waters from the Orange River to some underground reservoir and conserving it there. Then we will have water which does not disappear through evaporation. In any case, we must go into all these matters and I am simply mentioning the fact that we are carrying out surveys in regard to these matters, and as progress is made the particulars will be made available.

The hon. member for Kimberley North, in his usual neat and pedagogic manner, measured and clear, told us about the Vaalharts scheme. I can tell him that it was a privilege for me to visit that area. I know that area. The hon. member mentioned the figure of a yield of R20 million last year, of an average yield per hectare of R768. But, as he said, that area is ailing. My problem is that my department, as I have already said, has to spend that tremendous amount of money there. The White Paper is available. We have already asked for additional money. The difficulty is that Agricultural Technical Services is responsible for the internal draining while we have to provide the discharge facilities. Work in regard to discharge facilities in stormwater channels cannot be done haphazardly. If there is a group of farms which have mineralization and waterlogging problems, one cannot complete only a portion of the work there. That is not always possible. It has to go hand in hand with more general planning.

The hon. member is very concerned about that area, and I share his concern, and so does the department, and I want to assure him that we shall try to find the funds—we already have the prospect of some—to dispose of that programme as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. He requested that it be completed by 1977. He is a real farmer, for he is very optimistic, but we shall do our best. I cannot give him that assurance, except that we shall do our best to solve that problem. I could also mention that there are alternatives which I have thought of myself, and it is very good to know and hear that our people are so constructive in regard to these matters. The one alternative is to pump out that water. But in order to do so we shall have to have the co-operation of the community there.

The hon. member for Worcester referred to mineralization with reference to Vaalharts. I want to tell the hon. member that the Breë River valley with its tremendous potential is a productive area which is of great value not only to the Western Cape but to the entire country, and I foresee a great expansion of irrigation there, but that we will very definitely have to maintain a high standard. The micro-irrigation and the drip irrigation which is being applied there is an example to the rest of the country. But we shall have to look into this matter very carefully in future, for I have already seen signs of people irrigating away from the Bree River and in that way leaching the salt layer which could cause a major salination problem in future. As far as the effluent from the various cellars are concerned, I can tell him that my department is already inspecting a large number of cellars and has issued permits for the discharge of the efflux, which ought to be satisfactory for the purpose of preventing pollution. It cannot as yet be said when the report of the long term research will be available. We hope that hon. members will keep themselves informed on these matters.

The hon. member for Albany asked for a regional water scheme in his area, which affects the Bushmans River and which we can link up. He made submissions to me. I want to thank the hon. member for his kind words, and also for those he addressed to my private secretary who unfortunately cannot remain with me. He has to return to Bantu Administration. I appreciate the goodwill which I was able to build up in collaboration with him. For the rest I want to say that I should prefer to reply at a later stage to this question of the link up in his area. We realize that it is an area in which the lack of water is a problem. Investigations were carried out earlier. When the Orange River scheme was planned for the very first time this area was not included, but attention was subsequently given to it and was found that it would be rather expensive. But I am prepared to consider the matter again, and inform the member at a later stage of what the position is.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay has his own priorities and I have great appreciation for them. I want to tell the hon. member that I find the approach in regard to the Duivenhok water provision scheme to be an exceptionally interesting one, where water will be provided over a very large area. It appears that it will be economic because one will be able to double one’s agricultural production, for the most part comprising stock breeding, in that area by means of water provision. It is merely a question of when we shall find the money. Unfortunately there are so many projects in the pipeline that it is going to be rather difficult to meet all the needs, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that I take a personal interest in this. We hope that we need not wait too long. He also mentioned the region south of the Outeniqua Mountains, and we shall also see what we can do about that. The so-called Keyser Commission to which he referred was of course an interdepartmental committee, and has already submitted its report. It is an official report. But the investigation of the schemes for irrigation and regional water provision in the Mossel Bay/George area is still receiving attention from the department.

The hon. member for Humansdorp expressed thanks for the wonderful scheme there, the Paul Sauer dam, and the entire scheme along the Gamtoos River, and then discussed floods as well. It would be possible to discuss floods rather extensively, but I am not going to dwell on that matter this afternoon. I think we could say more about this matter on a subsequent occasion, but it was very interesting to listen to what the hon. member said.

He also touched upon the question of doing the building work independently. With that I want to return to the hon. member for Mooi River, who asked what progress we had now made with the P. K. le Roux Dam. I can only tell him that the R90 million in the White Paper includes everything, and not merely the cost of the dam. It seems to me as though the dam will remain very much in the region of R45 million. I hope to be able to inform the hon. member next year that the dam has been completed.

In any event it does not seem as though the department will go much beyond the amount of R45 million. But there has been tremendous escalation, and the same would have applied to a contractor. If I remember correctly, the lowest contract was for an amount of R52 million. It therefore appears as though the department is doing exceptionally well in this regard, and that my predecessor was very close to the mark with the confidence which he placed in the department. As happened in the area of the constituency of the hon. member for Humansdorp, the department also did exceptionally well here. The hon. member for Humansdorp requested that floods be controlled, but we shall have to discuss this matter at a later stage for there is quite a good deal to be said about the control of floods by means of dams. Hon. members can appreciate that it has only a limited effect and if we have exceptional flood years, as this year, then our chances of controlling the floods are very slim. Although some of our dams served a very useful purpose this year, the effectiveness is still limited. This year we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that we succeeded in preventing a portion of Vereeniging from being flooded, but the farmers above the Vaal Dam are now complaining that we kept all of the water in the Vaal Dam and caused their farms to be flooded. According to them we only did so because the people of Vereeniging kicked up a greater fuss about it than they did. We must accept that arguments of this kind will occur from time to time. The hon. member for Standerton and the farmers in his area have already consulted us in this regard, and I hope that we shall subsequently succeed in convincing the people there that the floods which occurred above the dam could not really be blamed on the Vaal Dam. However, we could give attention to this matter at a later stage.

I think I have already touched upon the question in respect of agreements which was raised by the hon. member for Mooi River in his second speech. I want to assure the hon. member that we have concluded this agreement with the Transkei, and that further particulars will flow from it, for by the nature of things one cannot determine in advance in what way one wishes to abstract water from a river. Future planning may indicate that we are able to use water which is available in the Transkei and which is not being utilized by them, after we have concluded agreements with them. However, we shall have to deal with each case on its merits. I see in this a possibility for very good co-operation and liaison with our neighbouring states, not only our homelands, but also with those areas further to the north of us, as well as with other areas even further removed from our country. In exchange for the use of our water we could help these areas with their development. I am not going to furnish any details, but I just want to mention that the Spioenkop Dam was originally built with the idea of supplying the Vaal River with water from it. After the dam had been constructed it appeared that there were other dam sites which could be better utilized for this specific provision, and which would allow this to be done more cheaply. The Spioenkop Dam was then completed to stabilize the lower reaches of the Tugela River, for if the other dams were to have been completed and a shortage of water had occurred in the Tugela River, problems would have been experienced in this regard. The dam is therefore serving a purpose. This year it is already being used to provide Ladysmith with water. It could be said that the Spioenkop Dam was built too soon, but if a major drought should occur, the people would on the other hand allege that the dam had not been built in time. Hon. members will simply have to decide for themselves in what light they are going to regard this particular dam, for I am not going to elaborate on it any further.

The hon. member referred to the question of the White Paper on the Usuthu Vaal as an example of a White Paper which is not comprehensible to hon. members as laymen. The hon. member asked for a discussion to be held in this regard, and I have given the hon. member the assurance that this will be done.

I want to thank the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet for the way which he thanked the department and also for his approach to flood control which he set out here in this House. The hon. member made a plea for gauging stations and implied that he felt that we should devote attention to controlling the floods in the Gamtoos River. I want to assure the hon. member that these matters are being approached scientifically. Floods do not always originate in the same way. The larger the catchment area, the more complicated the problem becomes. According to my department the magnitude of the flood varies according to the size of the square root of the catchment area. In other words, half of the size of a catchment area produces only a quarter of the flood peak on its own. Therefore it is essential that if a dam should be built for flood control, it should be built as close as possible to the area that has to be protected.

The hon. member referred to various rivers and said that we ought to build dams in them. If one wanted to build a dam for flood control in the Gamtoos River, then it would have to be built as close as possible to the areas which are flooded. If one does not do this the same problem could arise that arose in the Vaal River and in the Orange River. There we dammed up the water in the Bloemhof Dam and in the Hendrick Verwoerd Dam, but between the two such a large mass of water originated that control was completely eliminated. It was very interesting to listen to the ideas of the hon. member, for he is an expert in that sphere. However, this is a matter which will have to receive attention over the long term for if we do not even have the necessary money to drain the Vaalharts or to tackle other urgent schemes, we probably cannot, at this stage, even consider building dams for flood control. I want to concede that such dams in the Gamtoos River could in fact play an important part.

The hon. member for Somerset East referred to the tunnel that has to serve the Sundays River. The construction work on this tunnel is making rapid progress. As the hon. member can see, there is an amount for this purpose in the estimates and I therefore do not want to elaborate on it now. As far as the Bushmans River is concerned, I have already told the hon. member for Albany that we shall simply have to wait for the proper investigation in future that has been requested.

The hon. member for De Aar thanked the previous Minister for his visits to his area. It is probably a Minister’s duty to pay visits to areas in which such large dams are situated. I also envisage visiting all areas in future in which irrigation is being applied on such a large scale. The hon. member provided other interesting data as well and requested, inter alia, that consideration should be given to irrigation in the Oviston area. I cannot reply to the hon. member on this score now, but we shall certainly give attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Marico referred to problems which are being experienced with bridges and dam walls, but that is not the work of my department. It is the duty of the provincial authorities to look after those aspects. However, there is liaison between my department and them, and they are expected to take the peak floods of rivers into consideration when they build bridges. The hon. member also referred to the Eerstepoort scheme on the Groot Marico River. Of course this scheme will primarily provide Bophuthatswana with water and we shall subsequently have to give attention to the representations addressed by farmers who also want to make use of this water.

I have tried to keep my reply short, but nevertheless to give attention to all the requests to me by hon. members. I want to conclude by conveying appreciation once again for the exceptional contributions which hon. members have made here to a really interesting debate. I would never have thought that Saturday afternoon could have been so interesting. The debate was of a really high standard, and I wish to express the hope that, with the necessary co-operation, we shall in the interests of our country be able to make contributions from both sides of this House to stimulate this department so that it can do even better work than it has done in the past.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 40 and SWA Vote No. 25.—“Forestry”:

Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being thought rather loquacious today, it is my task to welcome the hon. the Minister to the discussion on this Vote. We had the opportunity on an earlier occasion to welcome him to the department when we dealt with legislation introduced by him. Therefore, I am not going to spend any time doing so again.

This is another department that has during the last 10 years seen a great deal of change, and a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon it. I think in the past this department was regarded as one of the stepchildren among departments. It was a department that was shuttled about from Minister to Minister. It is only in the past eight years that it has come to be tied very firmly to the Department of Water Affairs. I think this is a very sound and reasonable place to have it, because these two departments have between them a very vital function to perform which is basically that of controlling and allocating water resources, managing water resources to obtain the maximum amount of run-off for the use of the country as a whole.

One of the most important developments that have taken place during the past 10 years, during the time that I have been interested in this department, has of course been the appointment of the Forestry Council. This council today offers a forum where the different interests in the timber industry and the forest industry can come together. It provides a place where processors and growers can meet and exchange ideas and opinions to try to arrive at some common ground on the particularly difficult problem of prices for their products. The key to the whole future of the timber industry is of course related to the price which is obtainable for the timber products. There will obviously be differences of opinion between growers and processers as to the actual costs on which prices can be based. Without an adequate return to timber growers, the whole future of the industry will simply fade, and the industry will collapse and disappear altogether. It is the Minister’s job in the interests of the whole timber industry to maintain the balance between processers and growers. On both sides he has some pretty tough and able characters to handle. I think he will have to deal very sternly and strictly with them and take a good grip of the situation now when he has just newly acquired this portfolio. He must show that he intends to see that a fair balance is maintained between these two sectors of the industry.

The question of an export market was something which caused a great deal of dissatisfaction, for instance, when the Central Timber Co-op entered into a contract to export wattle timber to Japan. This is a 10-year contract which will result in a considerable amount of timber being exported. One of the points that was made by the previous Minister was that this did not necessarily entail the best timber being exported because it is only exported in chip form. One can therefore expect that the best timber in the form of poles will be retained and used here in South Africa. It was expected that a lot of timber which would otherwise go to waste in the plantations would be used for this chip contract. My information is that this is in fact not happening. I will welcome any information the hon. the Minister can give me in this regard, because it is obvious that if only the smaller pieces of timber of anything that cannot be used as poles is sent, it will be uneconomic to a very large extent to rail those over considerable distances to the chipping plant at Cato Ridge.

What I can see happening is that there will be intensified competition between the pit prop industry and this new chipping industry which is vital to the maintenance of the present price position and has made a very big difference indeed to the price of wattle timber. It means a great deal to all wattle producers. The previous Minister insisted that this was the position; that it would be possible to use inferior timber, timber which was not of the very best quality, to maintain this contract. I will be very interested to know whether that is in fact happening. My information is that it is not happening at all.

In a previous debate I raised the question of agreements with the Transkei. I had the chance to see that there is an agreement being entered into with the Transkei Government on behalf of the Department of Forestry in terms of which statistics will still be made available to this department. It is quite obvious that if we are going to have any really intelligent planning at all for the future as to the supplies of timber which are going to be available to us from the Transkei, KwaZulu and all the other areas where there is a considerable timber potential, it is absolutely vital that we get these statistics. I am pleased to see that it is intended that we should get them. Whether they are in fact going to continue to be made available to us, I do not know. As I understand the situation at the moment, this department is going to act as the agent of the Transkei Government, so that for a certain period at least we can expect an adequate supply of statistics for the purposes of planning.

A further matter I should like to raise is one which has been a subject of some discussion in the Press recently. I refer to the question of fire control. Anybody who reads the department’s annual reports and anybody who has anything to do with the timber industry will know that an immense amount of loss is caused to the timber industry each year by fire. The other day I saw an article in the newspapers on the use of aircraft for fire-fighting. The aircraft which were referred to in this article are used to bomb the fires and thus extinguish them in an easier fashion. Some nine years ago I raised this matter in this House. I still have at home a pamphlet which was put out by a Canadian company and which was given to me by the Natal Midlands Fire Protection Association. I want to pay tribute to that organization, which is absolutely vital to the whole of the timber industry in the Natal Midlands. They have brought fire protection in that area to a fine art indeed. Each year they mobilize fire-fighting teams, and control the whole effort to fight fires in the Natal Midlands. They put this matter to me a considerable number of years ago, and I raised it in this House. I must say that there was a rather blank silence on the part of the department at the time. I think the situation today is a very different one, in that there is, certainly in my area, anyway, a tremendous amount of water in private dams, State dams, etc., which will make a proposition like this more of a reality than it might have been in those days. I want to say, however, that even if one has several of these aircraft—and one will obviously need more than one if one is going to have any sort of control over a large runaway fire—one is still not going to be able to do without the services of an organization like this. One will still have to rely on the old method of putting out fires, which is to have men on the ground beating the flames. One can drop as much water as one likes on a fire, but in the end one still needs beaters to control the little fires which break out and keep on spreading. Recently a tremendous fire broke out in West Germany. Thousands and thousands of hectares of ground were devastated. These aircraft were used to combat that blaze. They were able to make some impression on it, but I do not think that was an ideal situation in which to use them. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the department’s attitude to these aircraft is. Are they considering using them in any way at all?

A further question I should like to raise is one which has been raised many times by this side of the House in the past, and that is the question of loans to farmers for afforestation. There is a tremendous demand for timber. This department itself is intent on purchasing more ground. They are doing everything they can to encourage farmers to use more ground for timber. It seems to me, however, that both the department’s purchasing programme and its programme to encourage fanners to plant timber have ground to a complete halt, simply because funds are not available at this particular stage. There can be no doubt that if we are going to fulfil the needs of this country for timber for the foreseeable future, there will have to be an accelerated spurt of planting. In the light of the fact that the private sector of the industry has been discouraged in the past couple of years, by prices which they have not found altogether to their satisfaction, I believe that the department has a clear obligation to take up the slack, as it were, and to put themselves in the position of filling the need until the private sector can catch up and take a greater interest.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River referred to the Forestry Council. Of course, the Forestry Council is achieving great success. It is interesting to note that the council finances itself by means of a levy paid by the timber industry itself. I just want to refer briefly to the matters dealt with by the council, as set out on page 6 of its report. They imposed a levy on timber in the round, they considered a scheme for financial assistance for afforestation, they discussed the increase of prices for timber in the round, they instituted an investigation into the costs of timber production, they established a training scheme for Bantu employees in the forestry industry, they investigated the effect of the transfer of afforested areas to various homeland Governments on the timber supply of the Republic, they discussed the export of wattle timber, they discussed mining timber requirements, they gave attention to fire-fighting by means of aircraft—a matter which the hon. member also touched upon—they studied the shortage of resorcinol and creosote, they discussed the continuation of the “Our Green Heritage” campaign, they gave attention to the lifting of price control on construction timber and on interim price-fixing and the function of the council with regard to disputes in the forestry industry, they gave attention to the Timber Marketing Bureau and its activities, the amendment of the Forest Act, 1968, they gave attention to the supply and demand of hard wood, pulp wood and mining timber, they discussed the matter of increasing Bantu wages, as well as the supply of railway wagons, the proposed long-term forestry plan in South Africa, metrication, etc. We can see that this industry is organizing itself very thoroughly.

This afternoon I want to refer specifically to one aspect which the council also investigated, and that is the report of the interdepartmental committee for indicating priority areas for afforestation. We have realized for a long time how essential it is to plan for future afforestation. The committee referred here to the report of Mr. Kraamwinkel on the future demand for timber in the round. I wish to furnish only a few figures now which, in my opinion, are important. At present the total area under afforestation will yield approximately 12½ million cubic metres of timber. The calculation is that by the year 2000 we shall require not less than 31½ million cubic metres to meet our needs. In other words, we shall have to reckon on an annual growth of 3,75%, which means that we shall have to increase the area under afforestation 2,3 times. In other words, we have almost a million hectares today, and we shall have to increase this to 2 300 000 ha. The committee instituted a very thorough investigation into the possibilities. Firstly they visited our neighbouring countries. They studied the position in Swaziland—all of us know that quite a good deal of timber is produced in Swaziland. To tell the truth, approximately 2% of the Republic’s needs are at present being provided by Swaziland. We know what the political situation is—it is reasonably uncertain—and therefore we cannot rely on Swaziland. Rhodesia is producing a reasonable quantity of timber, but there, too, the situation does not make it possible for us to say what we can expect from them in future. Angola was very thoroughly investigated. It was found that there is a great potential in Angola for the planting of plantation timber, but also for the provision of hardwood. However we all know what the situation in Angola is, and this case, too, we unfortunately cannot rely on this country for timber supplies at this stage. Malawi produces a reasonable quantity of timber, particularly pulp wood. That leaves us with the Republic which, as we know, is going to be divided up into homelands.

The homelands are going to receive plus-minus 9% of the plantations we have at present in the Republic. There is still a great deal of very good land available in the homelands. The commission conducted a survey and divided up the land into good land which is ideal for afforestation, and marginal land. The commission found that there are approximately 430 000 ha of good land available in the homelands, and that there are 310 000 ha marginal land. However, it is very doubtful whether all of the 740 000 ha will be afforested, for other needs also have to be met, needs such as grazing, etc. The commission calculated that we could expect, if everything went well, that we would in fact be able to afforest approximately 180 000 ha of the land available in the homelands. This leaves us with the problem that we shall have to meet our own needs during the next few years. We can rely to a certain extent on the homelands, but for the most part we have to rely on our own resources.

The commission found that approximately 846 000 ha of good land is available in the Republic. It will probably not be possible to afforest all of this, but we do hope that a large part of it will be afforested. Much of the land is situated in catchment areas which will have to be protected for water conservation and other purposes. If all the land is afforested we will, according to the figures I have at my disposal, still have a shortage of 260 000 ha of good land during the next few years which can be afforested. This will have the result that marginal land will have to be afforested.

I want to ask this question: Who has to undertake this afforestation? Hon. members will know that in the past the policy was that the State was responsible for afforestation in South Africa. The State in particular undertook the long-term cycles’ i.e. the timber which is produced for saw blocks. The private sector was more interested in the short-term cycle, i.e. the manufacture of pulpwood, mining timber and wattle timber which takes approximately seven to ten years to become productive. It is an encouraging sign that the private sector is also taking an interest now in the long-term cycle. This is of course because prices make this a little more remunerative at present. However, it is the case that when we come to the marginal areas, as well as to the sensitive catchment areas, I do think it would be best if the State itself were to undertake this afforestation. Therefore I wish to propose that the State should in fact undertake afforestation on a large scale in future. Of course land will have to be purchased for this purpose, and in the past the State was fortunate that it was able to purchase a great deal of the land at a fair price. In future it will be necessary for us to adopt a very realistic approach to these matters. I am certain that the land will not be as cheap as it used to be, and we shall have to prepare ourselves to pay more realistic prices, at least the agricultural value. I am convinced that we shall have to continue with afforestation; otherwise major shortages will be experienced within the next 25 years. However, we are fortunate in that we have a new Minister of Forestry as well as a new Minister of Water Affairs, and I am certain this new young Minister will tackle the problem in a zealous and positive way. Just as enjoyable as the hon. the Minister recently kept on walking when all of us were tired after the outing we went on to one of the new hiking ways, so successfully will he administer the department to the great benefit of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bid the hon. the Minister a cordial welcome to his new post. He is a neighbour of mine in the sense that he represents my neighbouring constituency of Nelspruit in this House. On the strength of that, he is indeed a very suitable person to have the Department of Forestry under his care, particularly if one bears in mind that forestry is a very important—if not a primary—industry in his constituency as well.

Pursuant to what the hon. member for Humansdorp said I also want to point out that according to surveys which were made our need for the foreseeable future—if we are to meet the required timber supply—is somewhere in the region of 50 000 ha per annum. If it is borne in mind that only 28 000 ha were planted to new trees during 1975, and if it is also borne in mind that a portion of these trees were planted on land intended for other purposes, and if it is also borne in mind that the homelands have the right to part of that land, it is clear that more trees will have to be planted and far more rapidly if we wish to reach the target set for the year 2000. However, I want to emphasize that, if growers are expected to produce over such a long term, it is reasonable in my view to expect that they will receive an acceptable, an assured and a good return on their capital. One should not lose sight of the fact that they are going to use valuable property for that purpose over a long period. If farmers do not have that security—we must always bear this in mind—it would pay them better to utilize their land—and now I am thinking in particular of the Eastern Transvaal, where my constituency is situated—for keeping sheep or cattle for example, for that region offers very good grazing. That is why it is so essential that something like this should happen.

If the value of the land which is going to be employed for planting timber is taken into account, it will be found, in my humble opinion that that land will at the present price be worth approximately R150 to R200. It is of course land which is extremely difficult to acquire. All of us know—and the hon. the Minister knows this too—that good land for the planting of trees is very scarce at the moment.

If we also bear in mind that a grower has to wait between 10 and 20 years before he can expect a return on his capital, it is clear that this is a risky enterprise. If a grower is not certain in advance that, when 10 or 20 years have elapsed, he is going to receive an adequate return on his investment—and this of course includes his profit—it becomes even more apparent how risky such an undertaking in fact is. Of course, the State cannot be expected to guarantee each entrepreneur his profits. However, since we are dealing in this case with an enterprise which is in fact in the national interest, which is extremely essential, I believe that it is necessary for the State to take steps to ensure the future of this enterprise.

In addition it must be remembered that the State and the Department of Forestry are in fact encouraging the timber grower to plant trees. This is being done publicly. In fact, I make repeated such requests to my voters. Growers are being requested to plant trees so that, at the turn of the century, an adequate supply of timber can be available to meet all the existing needs.

If we analyse the position as it was at the end of last year, we note that it gave no encouragement whatsoever for timber producers. I am thinking for example of what the situation was in the Eastern Transvaal. There—as is probably the case elsewhere as well—the demand for conifer and other structural timber varieties dropped tremendously. If I remember correctly, the drop was approximately 28%. As a result there was also a considerable decrease in the prices offered for that timber. In addition to that the demand for timber for the mines dropped by approximately 40%, so much so that in my area there were stacks of timber, some of which depreciated in value and in the end were worth almost nothing. They had to be dealt with on a quota allocation basis by the co-operatives. This made the position very difficult. For some people to whom it was very important, this was almost disastrous. The hon. the Minister will recall that the position of pulpwood was just as poor, as a result of the large-scale import of paper. The position for the producers deteriorated to such an extent that one almost feels one no longer has the courage to go to them and to say that they are expected to continue planting. Therefore I believe that, apart from the priorities in respect of what areas should be planted to trees and apart from the potential which may exist in this regard, we shall have to think of making comprehensive surveys of our supplies. We shall have to try to conceive of and lay down guidelines so that when the situations arise and when surpluses which may be of a temporary nature develop, arrangements can be made to ensure a more even distribution and also to ensure a reasonable distribution of the supply and demand. In the same breath I want to say that I believe that it will also be essential in this regard to keep a watchful eye on the position of manipulation, on the position of monopolistic conditions which arise from time to time in the industry. I do not want to accuse or charge anyone, but these conditions arise as a result of the fact that consumers who are also producers enter the industry and this sometimes has an extremely detrimental effect on the interests of the producers, of the growers. It becomes an important bottleneck in the set-up, i.e. the fact that consumers who are also producers have such a large share in and are able to exercise such extensive control over the industry that they make it exceptionally difficult for growers. I do not know what to suggest. The hon. the Minister, though, will know what to do. Perhaps the solution—and this idea has already been raised—is that the Forestry Council should consider the possibility of a control board. Initially I was not in favour of this idea, for I do not think that one should think in terms of a control board when talking about deficits or when dealing with an upward trend in the market position. However, if this position arises and there are any real prospects of any surpluses, as is in fact happening at the moment, then I think consideration will have to be given to granting certain powers to the Forestry Council so that it can then, through marketing, exercise a measure of control to make it possible to stabilize and rationalize the position.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Ermelo in regard to bringing a certain matter very urgently to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This is actually what I had in mind when I said earlier that the Forestry Council was a mechanism which could be used to balance out this sort of difficulty which arises between the interests of producers and the interests of the consumers of timber. I think we must accept that the state of surplus in the timber industry in this country is something that will be temporary. It is related to the general business cycle, and in this country when we have a normal business cycle, timber is going to be in short supply, and increasingly so as time goes by. I want to reiterate a point I made earlier on. I believe it is the task of the department, where we have a shortage looming, a shortage of ground to plant to take care of future needs, to do something. The hon. member for Ermelo made exactly the same point when he said that members of the private sector are just not interested to plant any more. It would be a very brave man who would, even if he received the money from the Government—which he cannot—who would invest money in ground and in timber planting in order to take advantage of a future market. I think the hon. the Minister must give serious attention to increasing the pro rata share of the department in acquiring ground and planting it with timber in relation to the private sector in order to take up the slack and allow the private sector to regain confidence and come into the market again.

As regards the question of the allocation of permits, I have had a great deal of problems in my constituency in this regard. However, because the Umgeni is probably the most important river in Natal, the matter is being settled very satisfactorily as far as I can see. Certain people are unhappy about the fact that they have been prevented from planting timber because of the effect it would have on the run-off of the Umgeni. However, my complaint is what I have already brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I had a letter from him on 13 January 1976, when he still was very new in the department. It deals with the allocation of permits in the Umlaas River catchment area. I raise this not because I expect that the permits which have been allocated to be withdrawn now, but because I want to use it as an illustration of something which I do not want to happen again. I think it is necessary to deal with this in some detail.

At the outset I want to say that, when permits were allocated in the Umgeni River area, the river was divided into sub-catchments and sub-areas in which it was calculated a certain amount of afforestation could safely take place. A report was brought out by Mr. Van Zyl of the department, after a study had been made of the question as to where the Umgeni could safely be afforested. There was a division in the catchment as to what could be absorbed in each of the particular areas. In the case of the Umlaas River, which is a small river and which has some fairly important irrigators on it who supply a great deal of material to the local market in Pietermaritzburg and elsewhere, permits were allocated on a basis which I regard as being totally wrong. From the allocations made it appears that no consideration at all was given to the fact that if one takes what is the permissible amount of afforestation and one dumps it into one particular area, one upsets the balance in that particular area and, in fact, utilizes for one sub-area of the river the entire amount of water which has been allocated for afforestation. This is what I believe happened in the case of the Umlaas River. I do not think the matter was sufficiently considered before the permits were issued. Meetings were held at Bainesfield and other places, where the farmers came together and where the department was represented. To start with, the allocation was made on the basis of an assumption, because there are no gauging stations and no accurate record of the flow in the river. It was taken as an assumption that there was an X amount of water available and that of that amount forestry was entitled to take Y. Having done that, various other allocations were then made. I quote from the letter I received from the hon. the Minister—

Certain of those permits were withdrawn, and in four areas the allocation of permits was above the Bainesfield estates in an area of 6 000 ha. Between Bainesfield and Umlazi the allocation was on 53 ha, above the Shongweni Dam 10 ha and below the Shongweni Dam 404 ha. Looking at this, it is quite obvious that 6 000 odd ha is about 80% of the total allocation in one particular area in the catchment, and this right at the headwater.

Mr. Chairman, if one examines the inflow of the Umlaas River one finds that a great deal of the water flows in during the course of the river’s flood below Shongweni dam. In the hon. the Minister’s own letter it is revealed that by placing the 6 000 ha in the headwaters, one is affecting the mean annual runoff in that particular stream by 21%, which is totally out of proportion to the 5% which is reckoned as being reasonable and which is a guideline laid down by the department itself. One asks what can be done about this. I realize its importance to the Bainesfield Estate itself because of the timber permits allocated to it. These are an interest it has. I do not believe that it is now possible to ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw these permits. I have no intention of doing so. People who have been affected—and these are the irrigators further downstream—have been affected very seriously indeed. I believe that it is incumbent on the hon. the Minister of Forestry to take action in this regard because it was his department that made the allocations to the actual identifiable detriment of irrigators further downstream. Here it is fortunate—as I mentioned earlier—that the Department of Forestry and the Department of Water Affairs are so closely tied together. I believe it was a mistake to allocate these permits in that particular place in one group and I feel that the hon. the Minister of Forestry should prevail on the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs to take a hand in the matter to ensure that the interests of the people further downstream, the irrigators, are not affected. In other words, he can take action, if an irrigation district is declared or whatever action is taken, to ensure the water supplies of the irrigators further downstream. The Department of Water Affairs is going to have to take a very keen and lively interest. It can allocate the usual subsidy that is expected. But what is going to be needed as a matter of priority? In a year such as we are experiencing now—I said this earlier today—with the floods that are taking place, everybody is saying we will never need that kind of thing again. I say, however, that within a very short while we will experience a shortage of water again. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that these people will shortly be coming to him for the establishment of an irrigation district. I would welcome a statement from him today as Minister of Forestry, whose department issued these permits, that he will consider their representations very sympathetically indeed. I think that they have every reason to expect the hon. the Minister to help them in this way.

Earlier on I mentioned the fact that the previous Minister of Forestry had said that by using timber that was virtually going to waste, the timber industry could maintain its export contracts to Japan. I was interested to see in the newsletter of the Timber Growers’ Association that research is being done in the United States on the question of using timber that is virtually going to waste. I should like to quote what was stated in a letter from the Wayerhauser Company in the United States, viz.—

By means of technology and new processes by 1972 they had been able to improve this to such an extent that where the previous ratio was one usable timber to four waste, it is today four usable timber to one waste. In other words, the whole picture has been entirely reversed. They are manufacturing today—as they mention here—paper honeycomb panels which are used in the construction of houses, etc., from timber which was formerly going to waste—probably being’ burnt but not being used at all in the plantations. I think that this is an indication of what can be done. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister not only whether this sort of work is being done in our country but also whether we are in contact with other countries doing work of this nature so that we can make maximum use of our scarce timber resources and ensure that nothing in our country in the way of timber goes to waste.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments. I trust that the hon. the Minister will reply to them.

This department is a very small department, yet it is a department which has attained wonderful heights in carrying out its function. I believe that this small department has a very important function to fulfil because the consumption of timber in our national economy is of great importance to our population. This testifies to the fact that this department has extremely competent officials, who carry on with this task of theirs like people who really have a mission to accomplish. The phenomenal growth of the department in recent years is attributable in the first place to its competent officials.

On the other hand, Sir, this phenomenal growth has to be attributed to the important function which the timber industry plays in the world and also in the Republic today. The importance of the industry is apparent from the fact that there are at present 309 timber factories in the industry. Timber and timber products to the value of approximately R412,8 million are sold annually. An amount of R328,4 million has been invested in the timber industry. The 52 000 employees active in this industry should be included here. The earnings of employees in this industry, rations and other fringe benefits excluded, amounts to R64,4 million annually. Added to this is the considerable amount which is earned in foreign exchange through the export of wood-chips.

Although the growing and processing of timber fulfils an important function in our national economy, the Republic still imports between 15% and 20% of its timber supplies annually. This is a considerable proportion, for which the country has to pay in foreign exchange. The Department of Forestry deems it necessary, in view of the timber requirements of the Republic, to keep pace with the growing annual need, a growth of 3,75% annually or, measured in quantity, of 12,443 million cubic metres to 31,438 million cubic metres annually. The increase in the production of timber requires an increase in the afforested area. In this way it is calculated that an annual additional area of 50 000 ha has to be afforested to keep pace with the growing need for timber in the Republic. Put another way, it means that the present total area of 1 029 000 ha has to be extended to 2 369 000 ha, an increase of 1 340 000 ha. The urgency of the matter is made more pressing in that it is not only the Republic which has a shortage of timber, this shortage is a world-wide phenomenon. It is therefore important to extend afforestation, but the Republic is handicapped by the fact that there is an extremely limited quantity of afforestable land. In other words, although it is essential to grow, the potential for growth is extremely limited. The fact of the matter is therefore that the existing timber forest has to be guarded with the utmost care, and that expansion should only take place with the best planning.

To guard a timber forest is a priority. Timber forests are damaged through a variety of factors, inter alia animals, such as troops of baboons, wild buck, bush-pigs and elephant, insects, invader-plants, fungi, wind and hail, snow, drought, erosion, driftsand and fires. The damage caused by forest fires is perhaps the most important of these. The plagues to which I have referred can still be controlled to a certain extent by man, but in respect of forest fires he is virtually helpless. It is true that the Department is taking precautions against forest fires. In this regard the department has an annual expenditure of approximately R1 million. Yet great damage is still being done every year as a result of forest fires. It varies, but fires devastate an average of approximately 500 ha per annum, which causes a loss of approximately R100 000 in timber.

This brings me to the important aspect of aerial fire-fighting, which the hon. member for Mooi River, too, has just mentioned. An investigation in this regard abroad disclosed that countries such as the United States of America, Canada and France are applying this method of fire-fighting with great success. For this method of fire-fighting an ordinary DC 3, better known as the Dakota, can be converted and fitted with two tanks. Each of these tanks has a capacity of 5 000 litres. These tanks each have release hatches which can be opened separately or jointly, and the tanks can be filled within 15 minutes by means of a special installation at an airport. The aircraft can also draw water from a dam which has a length of one kilometre or from the ocean when the ocean swell is not higher than two metres. These aircraft cost quite a good deal of money, approximately R2 300 000 each. Three to five of these aircraft are required to carry out fire-fighting effectively. This is very extensive, but I also want to refer the House to what the hon. member for Kimberley North said in a previous debate. He said that approximately 434 000 ha of beautiful grazing land is destroyed annually by veld fires. Calculated in monetary terms, this is a loss of approximately R3 000 000 per annum. The damage caused annually by forest and veld fires, justifies in my opinion the purchase and conversion of these aircraft for fire-fighting purposes. In this regard I also want to point out that various departments could perhaps co-operate in the purchase of these aircraft What could we not have done during the recent riots with these aircraft in respect of fire-fighting? It is therefore true that great expense will have to be incurred in purchasing these aircraft, but we could achieve great success by fighting fires in this manner. I believe that with the cooperation of various departments, this expense could in fact be justified. It is in my opinion therefore a project which is worthwhile having investigated by the hon. the Minister and his department.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.