I regret the Minister’s personal attack on me yesterday in the Committee when I raised the question of jointed-cactus. The Minister, I suppose, regards it as wrong if say any person under one of the Government irrigation schemes, on which they have spent millions, raises any question as regards its proper administration, but as regards jointed-cactus I am the injured party, not the Minister. The Government took over my farm and used it for experimental purposes and for a long period it was used as a try out for biological control, and although they promised to clear up the mess after the experiments, they did not adequately do so. Mr. Chairman, they assured me that they would issue me with a clearance certificate before I was to take responsibility for my farm. They never did. The Minister will not find a record in his Department that I was ever issued with a clearance certificate or given the chance to say “Well, a decent job of clearance has been made”. I suffered a life-long injury, it has cost me thousands of pounds. The Government talks abut its thousands of pounds, but it is nothing compared to what I have spent on jointed-cactus comparatively speaking, the time I devoted to research. I do not want to say it myself, but I am one of the leading authorities on jointed-cactus, although the Government does not seem to want to ask my advice. I made experiments with cochineal, I was prepared to take a risk at my farm, and I still have faith in biological control of jointed-cactus as the best method of controlling its spread. That is why I still try to impress upon the Minister to apply biological control and to experiment in that direction. Do not ask world authorities for reports on the success of biological control or the way it keeps control of cactus in its country of origin. Send our own people over to experiment and to find out. There may be several varieties of cochineal. Apart from that it is said that cochineal has lost its toxic effect. It is not so much that as the attack of the ladybird on cochineal. The ladybird has increased by millions and attack our cochineal. I hope the Minister will listen now. He has attacked me, and now he is carrying on a conversation with another Minister. I want to defend myself and give the reasons why I allowed my farm to be messed up, because I have faith in cochineal control, and I still believe in it and I am quite certain that in the end, even if another Minister were to succeed this Minister, I will be proved to have been correct. The only way we will be able to control the spreading of jointed-cactus is by biological control.

I have a few other matters I would like to raise. I would like to ask the Minister what progress he has made as regards the production of seed-potatoes in this country. Last session I mentioned that some of the finest seed-potatoes I have seen were produced on the Riet River Settlement. We import something like 15,000,000 lb. of seed-potatoes annually into this country, and I cannot see why our efficient farmers in this country, who have proved themselves equal in ability to develop farming methods to any farmers in the world, cannot produce these seed-potatoes. For instance, our farmers in the Western Province are the most efficient in the world, and I do not see why we should not produce our own seed-potatoes. We have all varieties of climate and we have facilities to produce our own fresh strains in other areas, and I do hope that the hon. Minister will pay attention to this particular matter.

I would also like to again ask the Minister to have some more efficient experiments carried out as regards the production of pineapple fibre. It seems that fibre is going to be one of the major important products in this country. We are a great wool-producing country and our need for bags per population must be greater than in any country in the world. The hon Minister has Collondale as an experimental station and there they are carrying out very efficient experiments, but they do not carry out experiments to prove to the farmer which is the most efficient method of combining pineapple production and fibre production. These two must be combined. I have no doubt that instead of letting the pineapple plantations carry on until they stop bearing, the Minister should experiment and have these periods of production reduced. It is claimed, as a result of experiments by the Minister’s officials at Collondale, that pineapples are at their maximum production for the first six years after plantation. I would suggest an experiment to try out five years for fruit production and use the sixth year for fibre. I have no doubt that along those lines, which the Minister himself to some extent has suggested, we may find the pineapple industry an economical one and one of particular value to this country. I would ask the hon. Minister to have these particular experiments carried out. There are farmers trying to carry out experiments, but they can never do it as efficiently as the Government Department that has the facilities and has all the data at its disposal. It may be of advantage if the pineapple is kept six years in production and the seventh year for fibre before the plant begins to fall to pieces or becomes unproductive. If a pineapple plantation is left in production, in about ten years it just dies out and there is nothing left for fibre production to speak of; I think the best fibre is obtained when the pineapple plant is at full production, when the leaves are the longest and are at their best. I have no doubt, with the machines the Government has and a regulated production of pineapple fibre, we may have an industry in this country, not only of value to farmers, but to the country in general.

I want to start by thanking the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services very sincerely on behalf of the tobacco farmers over a very wide area for the wonderful new building that has been added to the research station at Rustenburg, a building that was very necessary. It was nut into use during the course of last year. This has made it possible for research to be done in connection with tobacco such as has never been done in this regard before. This has now enabled the research station to tell us precisely what a tobacco leaf is and it has also enabled the research station to determine the nutrients in the tobacco leaf which are obtained through the medium of the various elements. In this way we will in the near future be able to determine precisely what is good and bad in any tobacco leaf. I also want to express our thanks to the staff of that research station for the services that they are rendering to the farmer and for assisting the farmers in every respect. But I also think particularly of the analysing of soil in connection with which much valuable work is done to enable us to know what our soil needs in the way of nutrients. I am speaking on behalf of those tobacco farmers whom we regard as small-scale farmers. They are small-scale farmers but they are small-scale farmers who can hold their own and I think that we are entitled to say that there are few farmers in the country who give less trouble than that group of small-scale tobacco farmers. It is interesting to note that a small ten morgen tobacco farm provides the living for at least 16 people—a family of five or six and ten labourers. It is not often that we find that such a large number of people can make a living on Such a small piece of land. And this is only in the production stage. When that product leaves the farm, only then it the value of the product apparent because then thousands of workers in factories are engaged in the manufacture of the final product of tobacco in the form of cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco. And it goes even further than this. It appears as though this chain is never-ending because we also have the business people who trade in tobacco and who make their profit from tobacco. I think therefore that if we consider the size of the land, there is no other branch of agriculture that provides a living for as many people as those small pieces of land that are under tobacco. Not only does tobacco provide these people with a living; not only is its existence justified because of the share it contributes towards the economy of the country, but it also contributes an important share towards the income of the State. I think that it is necessary for me to mention a few figures. Figures are perhaps not actually binding, but in this case I am sure that this will be so. We find that from a crop in our country of 49,500,000 lb. of tobacco for internal consumption and 17.000.000 lb. for export, the State collects revenue in excise duty on cigarettes alone to an amount of R46,000,000; on pipe tobacco, R5,000,000; on cigarette tobacco nearly R56.000 and on cigars, R11,000. a total of R51,800,000. This is the revenue that the State collects, over and above the living that tobacco gives to the community. All this comes from these small pieces of land. I think that I have proved that tobacco farming merits the support of everyone in South Africa. A large industry of this nature on such a small piece of land, an industry which gives the Government so little trouble, cannot lightly be ignored. That is why on behalf of the tobacco farmers I want to ask people to forget about all the accusations that are made against the smoking habit because these accusations hamper the hon. the Minister in his efforts to promote this strong industry. Questions are continually being put to the hon. the Minister of Health and we are always reading reports and hearing speeches made which are to the detriment of this industry. We feel that this is unjust be cause there is no proof of any sort that there is any harm in smoking. This has not been proved by any doctors in the world. On the contrary, a great deal has been proved in favour of smoking and I want to quote what was said by a great doctor, Dr. Norman Shenstone, the man who made a name for himself in 1932 by removing an infected lung. This doctor says that he removed a cancerous lung from a man in 1932 and that that man is still alive and smokes up to three packets of cigarettes a day. The man who still wants to tell me that there is any danger in smoking must be warned that I will not believe him.

They are just nonsensicalities (twakstories).

The medical world is uncertain but we must analyse the matter further. Let us ignore the finding of this doctor. If we want to take this argument further we can say that everything we eat may be fatal. Everything we drink and eat, so the doctors say, cause the death of certain people. The drink that we take has a calming effect, and the smoke that we take which has a calming effect in this tense world gives us an opportunity to relax and to remain calm. This alone is of great value in calming our overtaxed nerves which are the result of a demanding life.

Do you smoke?

I have smoked more than anyone in this House. I think that it is wrong to try and take away that pleasure just for the sake of a small group of anti-smokers. This attitude can only be the result of profound ignorance on the part of these people.

When we think of what the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has done for us, we cannot imagine what our agricultural industry would be like without the great and important work that they are doing. The Department, which has a very difficult task, does not always receive the necessary credit for what it does. There are some of its experts who are world renowned, but the results achieved by the Department are not always weighed against the amount of work which precedes those results and against the background of research and study and of experiments and the many failures that precede those results. And that is how it should be. We must have failures because if this Department does not experience failures in its research, those failures will simply be transferred to the agricultural industry itself, which cannot afford to experience them. That is why it is no argument to say that the Department should have an experimental farm which is an economic unit. That is not posssible in practice. It must of necessity bear the losses which would otherwise be transferred to the agricultural industry. I want to go so far as to say that as a result of the work and the experiments and the guidance of the Department, the agricultural industry has made a tremendous amount of progress over the past years and we have had far larger crops and a larger yield per morgen, most of which has been due to the work of the Department. The yield has been increased to such an extent that we have to deal to-day with a problem of surpluses, and as a result of this fact I want to ask that the question of efficient farming methods should be taken to the highest level with the assistance of the Department. All positive factors that can assist in increasing efficiency must be utilized in the technological sphere but the financial aspect must also be given the necessary attention and the necessary knowledge must be conveyed to the farmers. We are grateful for the efforts made by the Department in various directions to convey the knowledge that it is acquiring to the farmers. The Division or Mechanization and Engineering holds short courses; demonstrations are arranged and farmers’ days are held and this knowledge is conveyed to the farmers in every possible way. This helps a great deal because we must remember that a large number of our farmers have not had the opportunity of receiving a thorough agricultural training. This is not their own fault because many of the farmers entered the farming profession during the depression and they did not have the means to receive that agricultural training. A large number of farmers entered the profession during the war and shortly thereafter and these farmers did not have the opportunity to receive this training either. It is necessary that our farmers should be guided in the various spheres. I want to support the appeal the hon. the Minister made that the farmers should visit the experimental stations and the agricultural schools. But it is also true that a large number of farmers who from the nature of things are conservative or in a groove, have first to be educated in order to receive training. Because of the changes in farming conditions and the more scientific direction that the profession is following, as in the case of mechanization, the farmer has to know more about the correct way to mechanize otherwise he may do himself a great deal of harm. They have to know what implements to use under certain circumstances and for a certain type of soil. They have to guard against the purchase of unnecessary and ineffective implements. The Department is doing a great deal of research in this respect. There is also the factor of soil fertility. I have said that the production per unit has been greatly increased but do our farmers know that in spite of the use of artificial fertilizers the fertility of the soil is decreasing as a result of that increased production? Are they aware that in the long run they will do their soil great harm if they do not treat it properly? There is the animal factor. Do our farmers all know how to obtain a low mortality rate and a high birth rate and a higher production per animal? Because this is so and because the farmers desire guidance, because many of them have still to be educated in order to receive training, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to adopt a new direction. I suggest that regular outside schools should be held everywhere on the platteland, schools which have to be attended every year. In this way the farmers will be educated. They will be given the opportunity, practically on their doorsteps, to attend those outside schools which should last for at least a week or two. In this way they will become aware of the value of training. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to give attention to this suggestion so that the largest possible number of farmers can attend those outside schools. If we cannot get them to attend these short courses in sufficiently large numbers let us then for the sake of the industry itself and its future educate the farmers to be as efficient as possible by bringing the schools to them. [Time limit.]

In reply to the Minister’s remarks yesterday, when he referred to certain of my suggestions as “bangmaakstories”, I want to suggest that he has not kept himself conversant with what has taken place in the past, or with what is taking place at present. I want to tell him what has taken place and what is taking place. First of all, where were rinderpest and lung sickness arrested? In the very corridor I was speaking about. Where was East Coast Fever stopped? In that very corridor. Does he realize what those farmers put up with during that time? Where was foot-and-mouth disease arrested in 1902? In that corridor. From that time on that particular area has had to put up with five, seven and 14 days’ dipping. For what purpose? To save the rest of South Africa from infestation. Was it not only last year that he released Komgha from the restrictions that had been imposed upon them for 50 years? Is the Minister aware of the fact that there were periods of time when East Coast Fever jumped from the Natal border to the West Bank of East London, a distance of 300 miles? How did it get there? Through sabotage. We know full well that infected ticks are easily collected, and they were carried for hundreds of miles in match-boxes. The point is that under White control those things happened in the Transkei, but does the Minister realize what could happen under Bantu control if they tried to sabotage the rest of the Republic? [Interjection.] If any hon. members opposite would like to check up the facts they are welcome to do so. However, we are extremely pleased that the hon. the Minister did arrest and localize foot-and-mouth disease in the area in which it broke out. Let me say that we would have taken a very dim view of it if he had not done so. If he had taken every veterinary official in South Africa to do so we would still have been pleased.

However. I want to get on to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), and that is the production of bags and woolpacks. He indicated that it would cost about R970.000 over three years, which was in excess of the price at which those commodities could be imported. I want to put it to the Minister that the farmers are carrying by that means the industries we are hoping to develop in this country, and none of us on this side want to retard the development of those industries provided it is possible for us at some future date to supply sufficient jute for the manufacture of these products. I maintain that with the increasing levies that have been imposed, it might be possible to subsidize these commodities from that fund rather than drawing it from the farmers as at present. Over a period of three years the better part of R 1,000,000 is a substantial sum of money to take out of the pockets of the farmers.

Now I want to deal with fertilizers and ask the Minister whether he has given any attention to the Viljoen Report and whether he has made any suggestions as to its acceptance or not. We farmers know that we are paying dearly for the fertilizers which are so essential for production at a time when there are reduced prices and surpluses which are difficult to dispose of. We feel that if the Viljoen Report is accepted, it might place the whole of the fertilizer business in the hands of monopolies again. So I suggest to the Minister that he should give the greatest consideration to it before he accepts that report. He knows full well that many of the commodities that are being produced by public utility companies are essential for our agricultural production and we feel that he might give some indication to the co-operatives to club together and take control of those articles so that they can get them at a reasonable figure. I want to assure him that in one instance the article is available at approximately R21 a ton, whereas it is being sold by the organizations which are disposing of them for as much as R28 a ton. That can represent a saving when the farmers are facing the position where they are being asked to reduce their cost of production and they are facing rising costs of production. The Minister should try to let the farmers have these commodities at a reasonable price.

I was extremely interested in the statement made by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) earlier this Session when he indicated that a financial department would be established within the Department.

That does not fall under me but under the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing.

We have now reached the end of this debate, in which a very wide field has been covered. I rise rather hesitantly, because I do not want to be guilty of repetition. A great deal of emphasis has been placed upon guidance and research. I, myself, was required to do a little research as far as my own position was concerned and, although I have great praise for the research that is being done, I must say that, as far as my own research is concerned, I feel that we are a little unfortunate in so far as, when we ask for a dam, we are told that we have high rainfall: when we ask for a veterinary officer, we are told that the climate in the Free State is such that we do not need a veterinary officer. I want to ask that consideration should be given to the provision of these services when they can be supplied.

During the 1962 session, and this year as well, a great deal of emphasis was, and has been, placed upon the shortage of staff and extension officers. Because of this fact it is gratifying to be able to say that this Department has done particularly well, notwithstanding the fact, as has been said, that this guidance is not always correct, and that it is sometimes unreliable. But I believe that no thorough investigation has been made into the reasons why the guidance given has not been successfully applied. In pursuance of this, I want to quote what the hon. the Minister had to say last year during the debate on his Vote, and we want to express our appreciation of the fact that the Department is working along these lines. The hon. the Minister had the following to say. I quote from Hansard, Part 4, Col. 5597—

The hon. the Minister said further that in connection with the policy of this Department it was the intention to bring an agricultural research advisory committee into being for every branch of farming. A few agricultural research advisory committees for various branches of agriculture already exist to-day. In pursuance of this policy statement, I want to say that this is a wonderful way to streamline this Department, and no one can object to it. But where we do experience a shortage of staff, having regard to what the hon. the Minister has said, I want to suggest that this shortage can be partly overcome by making more use of colour films and projectors. Mention has already been made of the literature that we have at our disposal for agricultural guidance, but, because that literature has not yet achieved the desired results, in that there are farmers who do not make full use of it, I want to suggest that guidance can be given through the medium of colour films that can be made available to the farmers’ associations, agricultural colleges and so forth. I believe that enthusiasm will be built up through this medium of guidance. I believe that an army of zealous farmers will greatly facilitate the task of the Department so that better results can be achieved. I believe that a climate must be created in which the farmer will have confidence in the work being done by the Department, and if results are achieved through the medium of these colour films, I will not be surprised if the farmers show more interest in the work of the Department and follow the guidance given. The climate that must be created is that the farmer must be convinced that if he follows this guidance it will not only be in the interests of the country or of his own farm, but that the policy is aimed at assuring the farmer of a better living. This living is after all, the important factor about which all this work turns, and we can only achieve success if we can make the farmers more interested and get them to apply what they learn from the Department. It has become necessary for us to preserve our agricultural land and even improve it, and it is vitally necessary for us to protect our natural vegetation for the future. This is the task of our generation and is one we cannot overlook. It is our duty to do this in the interests or the present-day farmer and also of future generations. Production must be increased, but this can only be done if there is close co-operation between the Department and the farmers. I believe that there are many farmers who have already had a good deal of success as a result of the guidance that they have received. Those farmers who still have problems can follow the example of those successful farmers. I want to make an earnest request that the methods used for giving guidance in this direction will receive attention. I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for having visited my constituency during the recess. I want to say that his visit was a very fruitful one.

I should like to say something about the youngest branch of the agricultural industry in the Republic, a matter about which nothing has as yet been said in this debate. That is the karakul industry. That industry is perhaps sometimes under-estimated. If it is realized that there are already more than a million karakul sheep in the North-West and that the industry earns foreign currency for the country amounting to between R6,000,000 and R7,000,000 per annum, and that there is a great future for the industry, it should indeed not be under-estimated. I am referring now to the Republic only, and not to South West. The climate of the North-Western Cape is excellent for the production of karakul pelts, and there is no doubt that in spite of the regular droughts which afflict that area the karakul industry will expand still further. The success of karakul farming depends on the quality of the pelts. If a pelt of inferior quality is produced, then, as in the case of all other agricultural products, the karakul industry will face a dark future. The secret of the production of good pelts is to use rams of a very high quality, and to be able to distinguish between a ram of good quality and one of low quality requires a lot of knowledge. That is the point on which I particularly want to concentrate. In South West Africa the mistake was made of not timeously and properly instructing the farmers in regard to the choice of good rams. There was a time when an attempt was made to introduce legislation to provide for the compulsory selection of rams; that the State should select the rams and that no ram could be sold unless approved of by the State. I was responsible for Agriculture in South West at the time and I felt that this was perhaps the wrong method and that a different method should be adopted, and that is the method which I now want to suggest should be adopted in the Republic, namely to educate the farmers so that they themselves will be able to distinguish between rams of good and of inferior quality. That can only be done by way of practical demonstration. If a serious attempt is made to hold practical demonstrations for the farmers as often as possible, either on their farms or at central places, that is the only way in which they will learn to distinguish between good aud interior rams. When one has once made use of an inferior ram and its progeny is inferior, one just cannot remedy the matter again. We have now started giving short courses for the farmers there. I know that at Upington there is a research station which does outstanding work and i am aware of the fact that an extension officer has also been appointed there by the Meat Board, who also does excellent work, but for such a tremendously widespread area that is not enough, and in view of the fact that there is a great future for the karakul industry in the Republic I feel that I should make an appeal to the Minister to devote special attention to it; to give special instructions to the officials there to spare no pains to impart the necessary knowledge to the farmers as soon as possible, to those who have to buy and use these rams, and only then will the karakul industry in the Republic be a success. We need not be afraid of an over-production of karakul pelts. The world demand has never yet been satisfied. This year, in the cold weather they had in Europe, the men started wearing karakul hats, and over two million pelts were used just for making hats, whereas the total production of South West Africa is only 2,000,000 pelts per annum. The total production was therefore absorbed in a single season just to comply with the requirements of the men, and therefore we need have no fear, i feel that the karakul industry in the Republic should be encouraged as an additional economic factor, and if the farmers receive the necessary guidance it will be a success.

I want to ask the Minister just what practical research work has been carried out in the last few years in feeding experiments with straight-run maize meal mixed with proteins as against the maize meal which is now being supplied by the maize mills and to which all the proteins are then added. Today with all the extraction of oil, etc., that is allowed, all the best ingredients of maize are being removed by permission of the Government with the result that the meal that is coming from the mills and which is subsidized by the Government or the Maize Control Board consist of practically nothing but pure starch. The farmer, especially the small producer, whether he is producing poultry products or dairy products where he is using balanced rations, is paying through the nose for his balanced ration because ingredients are being put back into those balanced rations at a tremendous cost because of the extraction which is allowed by the milling companies. I think it is time a little further research was done in this regard and that steps were taken to see that the straight-run meal is made available to the small producer at the same subsidized rate. I as a feeder can afford to have maize ground for myself. Like others who have carried out experiments i know what it costs to buy meal which, even though it is subsidized in price, has had all its goodness extracted with the result that one buys practically straight starch and therefore has to add ingredients of proteins in order to produce a balanced ration for dairy cattle, pigs, poultry, etc. I think this is very important to-day to our small producers. They are finding their costs of production almost prohibitive. I think that the small producer should be helped by means of practical demonstrations as far as the feeding of his herd or his poultry is concerned. He should even be assisted by means of practical demonstrations as far as the feeding of his Natives is concerned. Sir, I know that I cannot discuss the question of malnutrition here in much detail. I think this Minister is responsible for nutrition as well. I simply want to make the point that malnutrition is being brought about to-day because of the fact that all the goodness is being extracted from maize meal. I do not think that as much maize is being utilized on the farms to-day as could be used. I would therefore appeal to the Minister that more information should be distributed amongst the smaller feeders and the younger farmers who have not got the time or the money to make experiments themselves to find out just what it is costing them to put in those expensive ingredients to replace the other ingredients which have been removed by the milling companies.

Then I want to go on to another matter and that is the question of soil erosion. Judging by what the Minister said yesterday he is quite happy about the soil erosion position. He seems to think that soil erosion is pretty well under control in this country. I was rather surprised to hear him say, in reply to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), that he was satisfied about the soil erosion position. Sir, I still do not see one river running clear yet after rain, no matter how small that rainfall may be. When you go through the watersheds of the Drakensberg and when you go through East Griqualand you see soil erosion on every side. Our watersheds are still being denuded of soil; our rivers are still running red with the soil which is being carried to the sea, and when you fly along the coast, as we people from Natal do periodically during the summer months, going backward and forward between Cape Town and Durban, you see this soil being carried miles out to the sea, discolouring the sea. This only goes to show how many millions of tons of soil are being carried from the land. Does that prove that soil erosion is under satisfactory control? Is there one dam which is not being silted up in the Republic to-day? As a matter of fact there is not a municipal undertaking anywhere in the northern parts of South Africa where their water supply is not being endangered by silting up. If the Minister does not want to believe us we can supply him with the figures from the municipalities. All the bigger dams in Natal, and I think the same applies to the Transvaal, are being very gravely endangered by silting because of soil erosion, which does not show that soil erosion is under satisfactory control. Take the watersheds of our main rivers in Natal and East Griqualand.

Order! The hon. member should raise that under the next Vote.

Sir, I am dealing with the soil erosion part of it. Soil erosion comes under this Vote. I am not talking about water conservation; I am dealing with the soil erosion that causes the silting of dams. Soil erosion definitely falls under this Vote and the Minister dealt with it yesterday. I submit with all due respect that I am correct. I am dealing with the watersheds where soil erosion is taking place to a very serious extent. We will deal with the water conservation side to-morrow or later to-day. I want to deal with the soil erosion that is taking place. A few years ago soil erosion was taking place in East Griqualand on a large scale on land made available to the Bantu Affairs Department, and while I am on that point I want to ask the hon. the Minister just what liaison there is and what co-ordination and co-operation there is between his Department and the Department of Bantu Administration in relation to the control of soil erosion in the Native reserves, especially those on our watersheds. There is a tremendous amount of soil erosion on the slopes of the Drakensberg in places and in the watersheds of our main rivers. If we are going to run into trouble in Natal with the water we have, what about the rest of South Africa? You are going to spend huge amounts of money on your schemes in the Cape and if soil erosion is going to take place there and nullity that work almost before you start, then I say it is going to be a poor outlook. I want to ask the Minister with all due respect whether he has enough officers in that Department; whether he is training sufficient soil erosion officials to tackle this huge task; has he got the necessary manpower and how many technical officers is he training to undertake this very important work? Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is doing to see that we will be allowed to keep a satisfactory, well-trained and happy farm labour force. I do not want to talk about the marketing side; I refer entirely to the production side. As the hon. the Minister knows, you cannot take any odd Native who turns up on the farm and let him handle a four or five-gallon cow or a valuable horse because he may never have handled an animal of that kind before. If we have to rely for our labour on the influx control regulations, which seems to be the suggestion, then we are going to be in very great trouble. [Time limit.]

If I could have entered the debate earlier, I should have liked to reply to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) in regard to the locust plague about which he is so concerned. The hon. the Minister has, however, told him what the position is, but to set his mind at rest further I just want to refer to a few letters and telegrams I have received from the infested area, namely Marydale. His own supporters, inter alia, in that area assure me that the plague is now under control. In the beginning the position was not satisfactory, but if one bears in mind how large the infested area was one cannot blame the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the fact that their machinery did not get into gear immediately. For example, they started there towards the end of March with about 15 units for the whole area, and the latest report from Pretoria is that today there are between 40 and 50 such units. In the beginning there was only one aircraft, but later there were as many as three aircraft. I leave the matter there.

Then I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the Secretary for Agriculture and his staff on this outstanding report for the year ended 30 June 1962. It is an excellent piece of work. To tell the truth, it is something more than an annual report. It is really a textbook on agriculture. The time and care devoted to it and the thoroughness with which it was compiled set an example to the other Government Departments. Now I want to come to my comment. In the preface to the report the secretary claims much credit for the efficiency in agricultural and horticultural production, and quite rightly so. The work done by the Research Department and the guidance given to our farmers were so efficient that today the trouble is not production but overproduction. This efficiency was attained by research and guidance along the lines of better cultivation of the soil, better seed, better fertilizers, the combating of plagues and weeds, etc. Together with that, the farmers of course received financial assistance on a scale unprecedented in the history of agriculture in this country. But now we come to stock-farming, and here unfortunately the picture is quite different. The secretary says, inter alia—

The stock-farming industry in many parts of the country has not yet reached the same level of efficiency as agricultural and horticultural production.

He qualifies it by saying “in many parts of our country”, but then he continues to say—

I do not think that this reprimand for the stock farmers should be stated in such general terms, because where these things can be done I believe they are in fact done. I want to ask him: How does one attain this efficiency in areas where droughts are the rule and not the exception, and where, due to lack of water, one cannot produce any fodder, and how does one do it on an uneconomic farm? In the north-west, as I said earlier—and I am referring now to our stock-farming areas—almost 30 per cent of the farms are too small. It is all very well to talk about planned agriculture and of grazing control and of fodder banks in the form of spare, grazing, silage, haystacks, etc., but viewed against the background of the low rental, the lack of water for irrigation and uneconomic small farms— and here I am again thinking particularly of the stock-farming area—the remedies referred to by the secretary only remain pious hopes. I want to pose the question as to what the Department can do in regard to this matter. Other than in the case of agriculture and horticulture, it is still a fact that intensive research, and particularly comprehensive research into our specific problems in the northwest, is not in full swing yet. There are a large number of problems in regard to which hardly any research has yet been done. I shall mention a few of them. There are the stock diseases which are peculiar to the north-west. I think, e.g., of blindness amongst small stock, and I think of “geeldikkop”, plant poisoning, weed control, methods of controlling the caterpillar plague—and here I am not referring to the life history of the caterpillar itself; every schoolchild knows that, but what I am talking about is the control of that plague—the production and control of subterranean water, the desalting of water, and economic fodder for animals in time of drought. It should be remembered that in those areas ore has to buy one’s fodder; one cannot produce it. Then the basic problem is uneconomic holdings. I am glad that I can thank the hon. the Minister for the establishment of an experimental station, an experimental farm, in the north-west, at Carnarvon, and I hope that this experimental farm will consider it its duty in the first place to devote attention to this multiplicity of problems in the north-west.

But there is one predominating problem, and that is this question of uneconomic farms. To ask this type of farmer to devote attention to farm planning, conservation practices, fodder banks in the form of silage, etc., is simply a waste of time. In passing, I want to express the hope that when the Orange River scheme becomes a reality, the stock farmer of the north-west will also be given the opportunity to acquire plots in the new areas to be put under irrigation, so that he will at least be able to produce his own fodder. The consolidation of small farms is the basic problem in the stock-farming area, and I hope that the necessary attention will be devoted to it.

Just allow me to add this before I resume my seat. In spite of what is so often said by hon. members opposite, financial assistance to our farmers has never been lacking. The Government has done its duty, but this assistance should not degenerate into charity; it should be constructive and rehabilitative; it should be concentrated on the establishment of an independent and prosperous farming community. I want to assure everybody who might have doubts about it that the farmers do not desire anything else. The last thing they want is that the Department of Agriculture should be turned into a welfare organization for them.

I do not propose to react to the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down except just to say in passing that he thanked the Minister for the experimental station which has been established in the north-west. I want to link that up with what I said yesterday evening, and that is that unfortunately this Department has unlimited capital at its disposal for extension services to the farmers. The amount paid for the land on which this experimental station is situated once again shows that this Department has unlimited capital at its disposal. I said yesterday evening—and various speakers have drawn attention to it this morning—that the main reason for the failure of farming ventures is the fact that the capital at the disposal of the farmers is not being used to the best advantage. I discussed this subject yesterday evening and when the hon. the Minister had to reply, the Whip on this side of the House exchanged a few words with me; it was not my fault. Whips are in the habit of discussing matters with members in the Chamber, and I noticed again this morning that Whips on the other side did the same thing. The hon. the Minister used this as an excuse for refusing to reply further to the points which I had raised. I assured the hon. the Minister that I was listening to him but he said that he refused to reply further because my manners were bad. A minute later, while the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) was speaking, the hon. the Minister turned round and conversed with the hon. member behind him; then it was not a case of bad manners. Mr. Chairman, when Ministers get into difficulties, they always use this sort of way out of the difficulty.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Vote now.

Yes, I am going to discuss the Vote. Sir, since yesterday evening in discussing this Vote, our discussions, as the Burger put it, have ranged from pests to farms; we have talked about the fruit-sucking moth, jointed cactus, caterpillars, “stinkblaar” (thorn-apple), tea and coffee, tobacco, agricultural training, foot and mouth disease and goodness knows what else. And, Sir, do you know what the hon. the Minister said? In reply to all these complaints put forward by hon. members, in the proportion of two members on that side to one on this side, the hon. the Minister said that he was satisfied with the extension services which were being given to the farmers of South Africa but that many farmers still lacked the will and the desire to acquire knowledge. It was this same attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister which induced this side of the House earlier this Session to move that the hon. the Minister should be discharged from his post. After all the criticism that we heard yesterday evening and today, what is the Minister’s reaction? He makes a statement about the soil conservation committees and about fire-fighting committees and about the regional organization and then he says, “the implementation of effective soil conservation fire-fighting measures still remains one of our most important tasks”. But, after all, that is the position, Mr. Chairman. That is something which we on this side have been telling the hon. the Minister over the past 12 years. We have been saying to him over the past 12 years that he has too few extension officers; that farming planning is going ahead too slowly and that if he carries on in this way it will take goodness knows how many years before every farm will be planned and before soil conservation will be implemented properly. But then the hon. the Minister goes on to say —

He now talks about district planning and then he says: “The time has come now when it is possible for every farmer to make a start with conservation practice,” and then immediately afterwards there follows this threat: “That is why all our farmers are now expected to make a thorough start without any delay.” He makes that statement after we have been waiting for years and years for the Minister’s Department and the Minister to see to it that we get more extension officers! I want to quote what was said in the debate of 1962, in which certain districts were mentioned in which there was no extension officer at all. The districts which were mentioned include Murraysburg, Aberdeen, Prince Albert, Willowmore, Sutherland, Ceres, Bredasdorp, Mossel Bay, Knysna, Uniondale, Steytlerville, Pearcetown, Hanover, Britstown and Hopetown. That is the position only as far as the Cape Province is concerned. I could mention a whole series of districts in Natal where we have the same position. I want to quote from a debate which was conducted here in 1961. [Interjection.] We are still complaining and the hon. the Minister admits it now, because he now talks about district planning and no longer about farm planning. Mr. Chairman, can there be any clearer proof of the hon. the Minister’s hopeless failure to introduce proper planning than this very statement of his? If any member happens to hold a conversation with some other member, then the Minister refuses to reply, as he did when he referred to the hon. member for Harrismith who thanked him for having come to his constituency. The hon. member for Harrismith forgot to tell us about the row which took place at that meeting; he forgot to tell us that at that meeting too the hon. the Minister said what he said here yesterday evening and what he says in this statement in which he again tries to put the blame on the farmers. The farmers are now told to make a start in applying soil conservation measures after they have been waiting for years on the Minister’s Department. The hon. the Minister must not stand up here and tell us hypocritically …

Order! The hon. member cannot accuse the hon. the Minister of hypocrisy. She must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, and I say that he must not come along with the pious statement that the necessary services are available but that the farmers do not have the will and the desire to make use of them. I regard the statement made here by the hon. the Minister as scandalous. In switching over from farm planning to district planning he says that responsible leaders of the farming community have asked that active steps should be taken and then he says—

In other words, legal steps are now going to be taken against those farmers. Mr. Chairman, I should like to know on what leg the hon. the Minister is going to stand. How is he going to prosecute a farmer because he has failed to apply soil conservation methods when that farmer has been trying in vain for years and years to have his farm planned? How is he going to do this when there is not even an extension officer in that particular district or area? It is simply because of the pressure which has been brought to bear on the hon. the Minister and because he is aware of the fact that he has failed hopelessly in providing the extension services which he ought to provide that he has now issued this statement.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) in the bitter disappointment which she has revealed here because the discussion on this Vote has not been to her liking and has not fitted in with the United Party’s “operation platteland”. She has said nothing in her last speech to which I can reply although she did mention a matter of importance yesterday evening, to which I propose to reply. She stated that economic guidance should be integrated with our extension services. I must admit that this is one of the aspects on which sufficient emphasis has not been placed in the past. With the establishment of the new Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and with the very close co-operation which exists between the two Departments, I think it is perfectly clear to everybody that we do give careful attention to that aspect of our information services. One of the difficulties in agriculture, a difficulty which sometimes causes farmers to suffer, is that the available capital is not always used correctly. That is true, but that not only applies to agriculture; it also applies to other branches of our national economy. The wrong use of capital must be eliminated as far as possible, and the only thing that the State can do in that connection —because every person is at liberty to use his capital as he pleases—is to give guidance and to demonstrate practically how capital can be put to the best use.

The hon. member created the impression —an impression under which I also laboured when I did not know better—that there was no proper control on Government experimental farms; that money was no object there. I just want to emphasize this point: Both on our closer settlements and on our experimental farms we have created farming units of the same size as the economic farms in those particular areas. The accounts in respect of the variety of farming activities which are carried on there are kept absolutely separate so as to show the farmers that they do not necessarily have to practise exploitational farming in order to make a living but that by integrating scientific methods into their farming they can increase their income and the efficiency of their production to their own advantage. That is how we demonstrate in a practical way what can be achieved by balanced farming.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) put forward the plea yesterday evening that we should establish another faculty of veterinary science. He stated that I had said that I did not think the time was ripe for this. I want to tell him that whereas five years ago there was only provision for the training of 15 veterinarians per annum, there are facilities to-day for the training of 45. Those facilities can be extended without great cost to provide for the training of up to 60 or 75 veterinarians, if necessary, and nobody has convinced me yet that such a faculty which is capable of training 60 to 75 veterinarians would be too big to be centralized within a single institution. The hon. member said that the veterinary profession as such was being hampered because the chairman of the Veterinary Board is a departmental official. That is not the position; the veterinary association is a completely free body. I act on the advice of the Veterinary Board; it is the veterinarians themselves who advise me. The fact that the Veterinary Faculty at Onderstepoort has really fallen under the Department of Agriculture ever since its inception does not mean that it is a subordinate faculty. It is a faculty which academically falls under the University of Pretoria and it enjoys the same academic freedom as the medical faculties at our universities. I cannot see any reason at all why the medical faculty and the veterinary faculty should be integrated. They have been separated all these years and I think they have both done good work. As a matter of fact I am extremely proud of the achievements of our veterinary research institute under the Department of Agriculture, because if there is one research institution which has acquired world fame and renown it is certainly this institution. During the past year Onderstepoort has been visited by no fewer than 60 persons from overseas, not only veterinarians but very learned people. At one stage we had seven German professors here from the Free University of Hamburg. They spent a week here to investigate our research work. We receive requests from America and other countries that we should create an opportunity for them to send their post-graduate veterinary students here for further research and further training at Onderstepoort. In certain respects our research at Onderstepoort has advanced further than our research at the medical research institute. In other words, we do not take second place to them; in many respects we are ahead of them. There is the most cordial co-operation between these two specialized institutes. The hon. member says that we must not put all our eggs into one basket, but in that case we should also apply that principle to other specialized institutions; surely then it also means that it is extremely dangerous to have one central tobacco research institute where the basic research is actually done. In that case the institute should be divided into two or three or four or five sub-divisions. After all, research is not like an inflammable object which, if set alight, is going to go up in flames and consume all your available talents. I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument; I do not agree with him. I know that we differ, but let us agree to differ. If we always had to agree with each other in this life, I do not suppose we would ever make any headway.

The hon. member for Kroonstad made an interesting speech yesterday evening, but the matter with which he dealt really falls under the Department of Commerce and Industries and the C.S.I.R. It does not really fall under my Department.

I think the hon. member for Vryburg also discussed the question of research. He talked about the utilization of our natural pastures and to what extent it can be supplemented by the addition of minerals and trace elements. We are doing extensive research in respect of these matters. If we continue with our research a little while longer, I think we shall be in a position where we shall be able to give the farmers very much better guidance in that connection. The hon. member himself stated that one should guard against giving precipitate advice to the farmers as to what they should do.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) dealt with the better utilization of maize in animal feeds. At the ruling domestic prices it would scarcely be economic for farmers to use white or yellow, but partiularly white mealie meal, which is really milled for human consumption, in their feed mixtures. If the farmers do not produce maize themselves, it will be cheaper for them to buy maize and to mill it themselves. In that way they can then be sure that all the necessary fats and the other properties of maize go into the mixture. As I said, we are experimenting with the addition of ureum, molasses and all sorts of other things to stimulate the appetite of the animals.

The hon. member for Waterberg has asked me what control we have because he is perturbed about the spreading of stock diseases in South Africa, particularly from the Protectorates. We have no control over it but there is close co-operation and consultation between ourselves and the veterinarians of our neighbouring states, whether they be the Protectorates or other territories beyond our borders. I can give him the assurance that in the past two years considerable improvements have been effected and that protective measures have been taken in the Bechuanaland Protectorate istelf in order to place or to keep under control the spreading of diseases in that Protectorate, so that if they should break out again, they will not spread, as they did on the last occasion, over such a great area of this country.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) wants to know what steps we are taking to protect people against the insecticides which are being used to keep pests and plagues under control. Those insecticides are registered by my Department, and my Department has to see to it that the regulations are properly carried out. In the case of poisonous insecticides, and many of them are poisonous, the directions for use as well as the fact that it is poisonous must be indicated very prominently on the container so that people will know precisely how to use it. Our experience has taught us that if it is correctly used according to the directions there is little danger to human beings. But the question as to how these insecticides affect human beings is really one for research by the Department of Health, which does undertake such research.

The hon. member for Outeniqua is not here but he talked about the resettlement of the Coloureds from the Transkei. That is a matter which really falls under the Department of Coloured Affairs and not under my Department.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Albany that he and I do not differ; we are agreed that the best way to combat jointed cactus is the biological method. We have sent people overseas to go and see what is being done there. We have also imported some of those insects: we are still doing so but we have simply not been able to achieve success as yet. As far as pineapple production and research are concerned, the hon. member has suggested that we should make experiments so as to be able to give guidance to our farmers. Such experiments are being conducted on our experimental farm at East London. I think he could spend a very fruitful day at that experimental farm. The hon. member also asked what we were doing in connection with the cultivation of potatoes. We are still carrying on with the cultivation and selection of disease-resisting seed potatoes, particularly at Bethlehem in the Free State and at Roodeplaat in the Transvaal.

The hon. member for Rustenburg has raised a matter to which we are giving very serious attention. I want to give him the assurance that careful research is being undertaken at our institute, with the assistance of scientists, amongst others, whose services have been loaned to us by one of the large tobacco manufacturers and whose salaries are being paid by them in order to determine which properties in tobacco smoke are harmful and how one can get rid of them. I might add that a very interesting experiment is being conducted at the moment by one of our large tobacco co-operative societies. This concerns the process of fermentation. The progress which is being made in that sphere may lead to very important discoveries because by applying a certain process of fermentation, a complete change is brought about in the tobacco and it is possible to separate the various properties of tobacco and to determine the content of those properties.

The hon. member for Harrismith has asked that more extensive use should be made of colour films. We do make extensive use of colour films at demonstrations and at gatherings of farmers. However, I shall also bear in mind the suggestion that they should also be released to schools.

The hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs dealt with karakul farming in this country and pointed out the importance of this industry. I agree with him and we are very pleased that land has become available at Upington. In the future we are going to concentrate especially on karakul farming and as we become more expert we shall certainly be able to show our farmers the difference between quality and quantity at farmers’ gatherings and by way of short courses.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) complained because I had said that I was happy with the progress which had been made in connection with soil conservation. Naturally I am happy about the progress which has been made. But when I say that I am happy about the extent of the progress we have made nobody will convince me that that means that we have combated soil erosion altogether.

*We all know that this is a matter that we will always have to regard as a serious problem to which attention will have to be given continually. But I want to emphasize that it is not the duty of the State alone to combat soil erosion. The State’s duty is limited to the construction of large erosion projects which are too extensive to be undertaken by the farmer himself. But the farmer is subsidized to enable him to undertake smaller projects himself. The purpose of the subsidy is not to compensate him for what he does but to serve as an incentive to the farmer to appreciate his responsibility in respect of the land and in respect of his own farm. The greatest responsibility for the implementation of soil conservation measures really rests on the farmer. I want to thank the farmers for their contributions. There are many farmers who think that once they have built a small dam and erected a fence, they have done enough and the other things are then neglected. The time has come now when we should apply the law and compel those farmers who do not do their duty to do so.

Vote put and agree to.

On Loan Vote G.—“Agricultural Technical Services”, R 1,100,000,

I merely want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. There is a reduction here of R900,000. This is in connection with advances for soil conservation works. This is a very big reduction. The whole Vote only amounts to R 1,100,000 whereas last year it amounted to R2,000,000. Will the Minister explain the reason for this reduction?

The reason for this reduction is that we have changed our policy, as I said yesterday evening, of granting loans to farmers in advance for three years. We now grant only one-third of the loan for the first year, and as soon as the work is completed the farmer may apply again and then we give him the next instalment. We have divided the loan into instalments, and that is why the amount provided for in the Estimates for this purpose has been reduced.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28.—“Agricultural Technical Services (Regional Services and Education),” R9,792,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 29.—“Water Affairs,” R8,725,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? Water is the life-blood of a country and a country’s civilized development and total population is limited to the extent of its economic availability of water supplies. It is for this reason that the conservation of water is a major question in our Republic with its low general and erratic rainfall and consequent limited flow of water in its rivers It is for this reason that the Minister’s Vote, Water Affairs, is regarded as of major importance and why it is essential for the Minister to take the public into his confidence regarding the various schemes which the Department has on its present programme of works. The Minister’s proposed Orange River project, in its comprehensiveness, has fired the imagination not only of South Africa but of the world in general.

Order! I just want to mention to the Committee that Loan Vote E, Water Affairs, R20,297,000, can also be referred to and discussed. I shall put it formally immediately after Revenue Vote No. 29.

Thank you, Sir. The decision to embark upon the Orange River project has come at a most opportune time so as to give the necessary impetus to our waning industrial revolution and to ensure a supply of water for our increasing industrial civilized population. The minimum estimated civilized requirement per individual alone is 50 gallons of water per day whereas the Bushmen, for instance, can manage on a gallon a week. As our population increases in its standard of civilization so will our domestic demand for water increase out of all proportion. I am pleased that on this Vote the hon. Minister has made quite liberal provision for the subsidization for municipal and town water requirements, but I would like the hon. Minister to make a statement as regards his policy in providing water from the Orange River sources for the towns and cities which fall into the area served by this project. It is a great source of satisfaction to towns and cities if they have the Minister’s assurance that their industrial development consequent on the Orange River scheme will be assured.

But that is the case.

It is assured in some instances. Port Elizabeth for instance is assured of I think something like 40,000,000 gallons a day, but the Minister has not made a comprehensive statement and that is all I am asking for at present, just a statement from the Minister as regards his policy in supplementing the water supply of the towns and cities in the areas which fall under the Orange River water project. At present it is estimated that in spite of our artificial lakes and numerous dams for municipal and individual farming purposes and our extensive irrigation scheme, something like 20,000,000 acre feet of our annual run-off in the whole of the Republic is lost to the sea, and this amounts to 15,000,000,000 gallons of water a day. These figures illustrate the advantage to our country if this water could be retained for general development and even to raise our water table, or supplement evaporation to improve thunderstorm conditions in this country. I fully agree with the late Professor Schwartz that if we had more conserved water in this country it would affect our climate and our rainfall, but it is quite ridiculous to look, for further resources of water, to the Zambesi while we possess more water than we can cope with which is now running to waste in the ocean. Now the Orange River project drains two-thirds of the total area of the Republic and in the Orange River project we have the first serious attempt to retain the greater bulk of our surplus water and the millions of tons of our top soil which find their way to the sea annually. I would like to compliment the hon. Minister and the Government that, in the Orange River project, our greatest river will be harnessed in a comprehensive multi-purpose scheme, embracing the whole of the system of this great river, something which has never before been undertaken, even with regard to our smaller rivers, in this country. Never before has a Government undertaken to harness the potential of any particular river to the extent of the present planning of the Government as regards this scheme. Now as regards my little endeavours in the earlier years, my motions before the House, proposed the creation of an Orange River authority similar to that of the Tennessee River valley and, for reasons of economy, it only proposed small dams on the Orange River to assure freedom from silting up. But the present Government scheme rises far above anything in my earlier anticipations and the present system comprising high dams and extensive silt control extending into the areas which feed this river, as envisaged by the Minister, opens up avenues of development beyond my earlier conception, and I have no doubt that a scheme of this gigantic nature is going to stabilize the economy of this country. People prattle about increased food surpluses. But we must realize that a country’s wealth lies in its ability to feed its population adequately, for the foreseeable future, and I would say that our present food surplus is more a problem of maldistribution and because the average income is not adequate to meet the present cost of living. The Orange River project will be a factor in raising the average wage and in its comprehensiveness it will extend benefits to every section of our population throughout the Republic. Our present surpluses would disappear if adequate food subsidization, like in the case of bread, were provided, and this expenditure would in no way embarrass the taxpayer because all sections would benefit.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the 5,000,000 acre feet, the estimated supplementation of waters to the Orange River project from Basutoland, we need have no anxiety at all. There is no extent of irrigable soil in Basutoland to warrant any major irrigation scheme, and besides that our Republic holds an international prescriptive right on the waters of Basutoland and in regard to the disposal of this water. I only make this remark, but perhaps the hon. Minister can supplement it. But we enthusiasts behind the scheme, are always confronted with this question: “What about Basutoland, what about buying their water?” Sir, it is the water of our own great river and we have as much right to that water as the people of Basutoland, but they would have a right to use it economically for their needs. As I have stated, however, there is no irrigable soil in any part of Basutoland to warrant any irrigation scheme of major importance. So we need have no fear in regard to the limited amount of water from Basutoland, which is 5,000,000 acre feet, affecting this great Orange River project. Of course this is a matter the Minister may refer to, but because he may regard it as a delicate international question, I felt I would be justified in making a few remarks on this claim which is being pushed up to us in the Press by individuals who do not know what they are talking about.

The Ruigte Valley Dam will be the key to Orange River development from which all water supplies will be regulated, and it will also provide the facilities of an inland lake. I do not know if the Minister stated this, but I want to say that when you have a permanent source of supply, very much less water is necessary for irrigation because it can be rationed out more logically and when particularly required, and when a water supply is permanent, the Minister may even find in some places that it will be necessary to introduce compulsory spray irrigation, which is the best type of irrigation.

No.

You only need a fraction of water as compared to the ordinary flooded irrigation, it is more beneficial, it draws in the properties of the air, it has the effect more or less of rainfall which is much better than the ordinary flood method, and it will bring about a much lower use of water. You see, Mr. Chairman, we have to think about this water from the Orange River because we realize that it will have to be available not only for irrigation purposes, as most people think. I imagine that two-thirds of the water of the Orange River will have to be used for industrial and human purposes. As I have said, we have anxieties and questions regarding the carrying out of the Orange River project, and therefore we would appreciate a statement of a comprehensive nature from the hon. Minister.

On our Estimates the Minister of Lands has been provided with some millions of rand for the purchase of land to be submerged under the Orange River project, and I want to ask the Minister of Irrigation if he is satisfied that this land will be available in time for him to absorb the R3,700,000 voted for his particular Orange River project works. One does regret that in a matter of this nature the responsibility comes under several Ministers. We have the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Water Affairs, and even other Ministers who all have to share in this responsibility, and that always is a delaying factor. We would be very happy if the Minister were to say that he has no doubt that he is going to spend the R3,700,000 in regard to the Orange River project during this coming financial year. We would appreciate it if the Minister would inform the House that, in view of the numerous other schemes under departmental control, if the Orange River development works are to be carried out by contract and if international tenders will be invited. We would also appreciate it if the hon. Minister could say how soon the Minister expects to be able to advertise for tenders. The country has had its imagination fired by this great proposition, and if the Minister will give us as much detailed information as is available regarding his plans and the estimated time in which the various stages of the scheme will be completed, it will be very much appreciated. The public are hungering for information. This is one of the greatest development projects ever envisaged in this country and it embraces so much that I do appeal to the Minister to give us all the information he can. He has been very, very good in the past. I must say he has made no secret of his intentions. But even if we accept his sincerity and the correctness of what he has said, a little repetition for the benefit of the public would be of particular value. We realize the enormous amount of work that has been thrown onto his staff and the overtime many have had to put in, and we are deeply appreciative of this work and the great achievement of the Department to bring in the plans of this project. We appreciate the expedition with which they have provided these plans and specifications, and we deplore, with the Minister, the limited staff and the limited increase that has been brought about in the personnel. If the Minister can give us any encouraging information regarding the response for the advertising for engineers in this country and overseas, we would be pleased. We would like to know if the remuneration offered by the Minister compares favourably with that say of Great Britain. Perhaps the Minister could explain his scheme regarding bursaries for engineer-pupils. Are these in any way bound to the Department by contract? We notice that the Minister provides bursaries for a two-month period of study each year for about 60 engineering pupils. The sum voted is such that there could be two batches of 60 pupils in one year, and I wonder if the Minister could inform us whether the bursaries are going to be applied to two batches of students per annum, and if in any way these students will be committed to serve the Minister’s Department, and if an individual student perhaps would be able to participate, in one year, in the two periods if such are provided.

I do not want to delay the House any longer because this is a very interesting subject, and I would like everyone who wants to speak to have an opportunity to do so. But quite apart from the scheme I would like to ask the Minister to give us some information in regard to our underground water supplies. We do think of course that the Orange River project is going to be of material value as regards the raising of our water table and improving our underground water supplies. I hope people will appreciate that. Unfortunately people who bore for water imagine that their source of underground water is from the Zambesi whereas it is only from the local area. The Minister now has returns regarding every borehole made in this country, and I wonder if the Minister is having a report prepared by his Department as regards our subterranean waters, especially with a view to preventing over-boring and the waste of water. I imagine that surplus water from boreholes should be run back down the borehole. I even think that it is possible where there are water supplies, that one cannot make any further use of, one can direct them underground and supplement our underground stored waters which are moderately free from vaporation. But I do feel that people should be impressed by the limited extent of our underground waters in certain areas, even in the Kalahari where the water underground has accumulated over thousands of years and, in many instances, it is being pumped out at a very much higher rate than the source of present supply can stand. But I do not want to expand on a question of minor importance when we are anxious for the Minister to rather spend what time he has in this debate on the Orange River project and to enlighten us, wherever he can, and encourage us and build up the enthusiasm which is necessary in every way, even as regards the financing of the scheme. A lot depends on the general enthusiasm of the public and that is one reason why I do feel that we can assist this great endeavour by having the whole of the public behind us, no ideas of rivalry between sections. We have one great project in view and we are all going to stand by and support it being carried out, regardless of minor disadvantages some people may have to suffer in a development of this nature. Our sympathy goes to the people who perhaps have to lose their land, who have to sell land which will fall within the submerged areas, etc. But above their private needs, there is the great national need, this great national scheme as envisaged by the Minister, and we look forward to the reply of the Minister to this debate.

During the discussion of the Votes of this hon. Minister, a number of requests and representations have already been made to him and I expect that more will follow. I also want to make two requests of the hon. the Minister. My first request is in connection with the Van Rhyneveld Pass Dam. My request is that the hon. the Minister should give his immediate attention to having the wall of that dam raised. After a long dry period when there has been very little water in the dam, when there has been a water shortage, it has happened over the past two years that the dam has twice overflowed. It was wonderful to watch the water flowing over the top of the dam and it was a reassuring sight to the users of that water because they knew that they would have water for a long time. But what was shocking and tragic to see was how the water that flowed away was lost. If one considers that that water could perhaps have been conserved, it is even more shocking to think of the waste of that water. When that dam was originally planned and designed and built, it was built in such a way that its wall could be raised. We know that provision is made under the Orange River plan for the raising of that wall as well. That is why I am sure that I am not asking the impossible. You know, Mr. Chairman, that when that dam was built its capacity was fixed at 64,000 acre feet. Since that time it has silted up to such an extent that its capacity is now only about 42,000 acre feet. It is possible to raise the height of that wall and if the wall is raised by from six to ten feet, it is estimated that this will bring the dam back to its original capacity. Once the dam has been brought back to its original capacity and is filled during a good rainy season, we will have sufficient water to last us until the Orange River flows into the Van Rhyneveld Pass Dam. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance now that he will not wait until the Orange River eventually does flow into the Van Rhyneveld Pass Dam but that he will have that dam wall raised in order to assist us until such time as that water flows into the dam.

My second request deals with the subsidization of irrigation dams. According to the old formula we know that a one-third subsidy to a maximum amount of R600 per dam unit can be granted. This formula has been used now for many years and we feel that the formula is no longer suited to the times in which we live because when that formula was drawn up this work could be done far more cheaply. To-day a dam costs twice or three times as much as it cost to build a number of years ago. Because of floods in my constituency a number of dams in the district of Murraysburg were washed away. Subsidies were paid on those dams. The flood took place in 1961. Great damage was caused and the farmers sent a stream of requests to the Department. The Nucleus Committee considered the matter and the Cabinet decided to assist those farmers and to pay them a higher subsidy to repair those works. But fate struck again and on 17 January of this year the same dams were washed away and greater damage was caused than was caused in 1961. Now they are back again on the old subsidy and the farmers feel that they have not had the benefit of those dams. Not only have they suffered damage but in the meantime they have experienced a severe drought. They are now asking the hon. the Minister to increase that formula. I do not want to prescribe to the hon. the Minister how that formula should be increased but we ask respectfully and urgently that he should consider raising the subsidy per dam unit. We hope and trust that these two matters will receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I want to deal firstly with the question of pollution, not so much in relation to the sea—I want to come back to that—but in connection with the new Orange River scheme and the development which is foreshadowed up there. I think one must realize that as that scheme develops, raw materials will be produced in that area (I think it is fair to say that) and these raw materials will draw industries to the areas of production, because that is the tendency all over the world. If raw materials are produced in quantities, processing plants of all sorts then tend to go to the areas of production— because that gives them an economic basis. In this connection I would like to ask the Minister what attention has been paid to that aspect of the future industrial development associated with the Orange River scheme. I leave the agricultural side of it alone for a moment because the agriculture will provide the basic raw materials. But what attention has been paid to the aspect of pollution of the river waters? You know, Mr. Chairman, it was once said before the Select Committee on the Water Bill when we were sitting as we did for some three years, and it was said in a spirit of jest, but I am wondering whether one of these days someone is not going to take it seriously, and that was that the suggestion was made that in respect of some of the industries where difficulty was arising and there was trouble in respect of their effluent, because of the difficulty of getting a suitable chemical formula to provide for the adequate purification of the effluents, it might be desirable to provide that effluents from a factory must be returned to the river source above the point of intake of the factory concerned so that it would bring back into its own circulation system the effluents which it was itself producing. That was put up originally as a joke, but I think that one of these days we are going to find that it is not so funny after all, and somebody is going to say: The only way of getting past this difficulty of finding chemical formulae to provide for adequate purification of the water is to make the factories consume their own effluents, and if they do not purify that water to a standard which is going to permit of re-use, then the answer is that they themselves will have to suffer instead of making the public suffer. I am not putting forward the suggestion that the Minister should give practical implementation to it at the present time, but I do realize that if the development of the Orange River scheme is to follow the lines that have been indicated, then a very early application by the Department concerned of the principles of the purification of water from the industries which of necessity must establish themselves in that area, will have to be attended to.

I want to now, if I may, come for a moment to this question of the pollution of the sea. I am not going to deal with individual cases, or any particular instance, but I am just simply going to say that I think that since the Water Act was put on the Statute Book we have come to realize some of the difficulties which the Minister and his Department have to contend with, and as a matter of fact our Select Committee realized at the time that these difficulties would be experienced. I do not know how far sea pollution can continue before there will be a much louder outcry than there is at present.

I am not suggesting that any industry is worse than any other industry in that respect. I am dealing with the principle of pollution in general. My point is that there seems to be growing up in some quarters a belief that if you are in trouble about polluting the rivers one way of overcoming the difficulty is to take it into the sea by a long pipeline and there is no provision in the law which permits the Minister to schedule industries on the basis that their effluents have a toxic effect on either marine life or aquatic life—not necessarily on living organisms but a toxic effect on the flora, on plant life, which is a very important aspect, as against the other category of industries whose effluents are not toxic either to the fauna or the flora. Therefore the Minister’s Department must make the dividing line simply ad hoc in respect of every individual case which comes before them, on the basis of whether it has toxic qualities in its effluent or not. But effluent discharge far into the sea does not lose its toxic qualities. Now that we have reached this stage in our industrial development, I should like the Minister to do something about making it clear that we will not stand for the discharge of toxic effluents into the sea simply because that is the way of overcoming the complaints which are raised when it is discharged into the rivers or into the area of turbulence on our coasts. The fact is that some of the effluent being discharged into the area of turbulence is discharged much too close to the shore, and if it is only taken deeper into the sea we do not know what effects it may have on our fish life. It is something we cannot view with equanimity. I think the Minister should make a statement on it.

This brings me to the next point and that is that the Minister will realize that with the political developments taking place on our eastern seaboard, on the whole of that seaboard from north to south, the bulk of the major rivers run through the Bantu areas and control of those rivers and of the industries to be established on those rivers is likely to pass out of his hands. Not only will the control of the effluent pass out of his hands, but also the control of the water and I want the Minister to bear that in mind when he looks at his future policy for the Republic as a whole. Here is a situation developing where history will repeat itself in exactly the same way as we have seen in other countries and we need go no further than to see what took place in regard to the waters of the Indus and the disputes that arose in regard to the Nile waters. Here we are facing conditions which we created ourselves, where the bulk of the water running to waste on our eastern seaboard will be beyond our control and perhaps the Minister will make a statement in that regard.

As important as the provision of water is for the development of agriculture in the irrigation areas, is it important in those tested stock-raising areas for the development of the stock-raising industry. The development of agricultural industry under irrigation has reached wonderful heights during the past years and has become very profitable. There has been fantastic development in our crop-producing areas, the wheat-and maize-producing areas and we know that the highest agricultural income is to-day derived from maize. The development of our best stock-raising areas has, however, continually been hampered by a lack of water. Droughts which were precisely more prevalent in those areas have seriously hampered the development of our stock-raising industry in both the Cape Province and in the Transvaal. The most important problem to the stock farmer is to have water on every farm and in every camp for his stock and if he has that it is also the most effective counter-measure against the tramping out of his veld and against erosion of his veld. The Department of Water Affairs has done a great deal lately in this connection and we are very grateful when we think of it that the State has been responsible for 20 per cent of the drilling operations in the country, that generous subsidies are provided, that research is continually conducted in regard to the provision of drilling machines, especially the pneumatic drills. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that a very important statement is expected of him in regard to the revision of the new and stringent drilling regulations which came into operation last year. As the hon. the Minister knows those regulations caused an upheaval in the proclaimed areas and voices were raised everywhere against them. The regulations to which exception was taken were, inter alia, the following: firstly, the doing away of dry drilling units at State expense, as was the position in the past; secondly, the almost drastically high tariffs which are far higher than private drilling tariffs in most areas of the country; the elimination of small farm units of less than 30 morgen as proclaimed drilling areas; the elimination of drilling units under 100 feet for subsidies. Those were the matters in regard to which serious objections were raised. The farming group of the National Party in this House knew of the widespread and serious objections raised over the whole country and a small committee, the Drilling Committee, was appointed with instructions to submit a memorandum to the Minister. That was done under the leadership of the hon. member for Vryburg and myself and on the occasion of a visit by the Minister to Lichtenburg a representative deputation approached him under the leadership of the hon. member tor Lichtenburg and myself and they submitted well-motivated suggestions to him and asked, inter alia, that the new drilling regulations should be revised and relaxed in their entirety; that the drilling tariffs, which were absolutely too high, should be revised and reduced at least to the level charged by private drills in those areas; that the State should once again as in the past undertake the costs attached to dry boreholes or that a scheme should at least be evolved whereby tariffs should be determined on a sliding scale based on the strength of the water and the depth of the borehole and that the State should, in this way, once again carry a share of the costs of dry boreholes. As an alternative it was suggested to the Minister that there should be an arrangement whereby the State paid for the first dry water hole and that the farmer should contribute, on an increasing scale, towards the succeeding holes. More geologists were also insisted upon. It was emphasized that any positive concession should be of retrospective effect so it would not have a discriminatory effect on those people who had drilled in the meantime. The people affected in the dry stock-raising areas are anxiously awaiting an announcement by the Minister. During recent visits to those areas various farmers’ unions have insisted that if he revised the new drilling regulations any concessions by the Minister should be of retrospective effect. If it is impossible to make them of retrospective effect we should like to have a very clear explanation from the Minister why that is not practically possible. In the first place they want an explanation in regard to the wiping out of the imaginary line which has been dividing the country since 1910 between proclaimed water drilling areas and unproclaimed areas and the effect of that on the financing of State drilling in the Republic. It would be greatly appreciated if the Minister would give the facts in this regard in his reply.

Then I want to raise another matter which is always very dear to my heart, namely, that the Minister and his Department must observe and apply the principle when new irrigation schemes are considered for irrigation purposes always to give preference to the smaller schemes over and above larger ones because that means that more farmers throughout the country get the benefit of State irrigation schemes for agricultural purposes. [Time limit.]

Business suspended at 12.45 a.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Before lunch I had dealt with three matters on which I asked the Minister to reply in due course. Now I come to another matter, and that is in connection with the control of amenities and facilities in connection with the dams built by the Irrigation Department. There are a number of these dams providing very fine stretches of water. I think, e.g., of the Sand River Dam in the Free State, which is the central feature of the Willem Pretorius Game Reserve, and the wonderful manner in which the Free State Administration has developed it and made it into one of the show places in South Africa. The land comes under the Minister of Water Affairs, and not under the Lands Department, and I merely ask for a statement from the Minister as to whether consideration is still being given to the future control of these areas, or whether a decision has been arrived at. I say that because I know various Departments are involved in the matter and some meetings have taken place. The Minister of Education, Arts and Science actually established a committee to investigate the use of these areas for recreational purposes. Then the provinces come into it and the Lands Department and also the Department of Health, for providing proper health facilities, but the control is vested in the Minister of Water Affairs.

One last point. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us precisely where we stand in regard to the Hluhluwe River Dam and the whole of the St. Lucia Lake system. This dam involves a far great problem, namely the future of the St. Lucia Lake system which is fed by a number of rivers, or rather I call them rivers through courtesy because in the main now they have ceased to flow because water has been drawn off by various people and in any case in the dry years these rivers tended to be very low. The St. Lucia Lake system provides one of the big attractions not only for South Africans but for people from overseas. It is the biggest salt lake in the Republic and as far as the amenities are concerned they are of more than normal public interest. May I say in passing, so that hon. members will not think that I am adopting a parochial attitude, that we in Natal do not look upon St. Lucia as being our private property but as something which is held in trust for the nation, and I think it is in very good hands, the hands of the Provincial Administration of Natal. The future of that area is not a matter which should be determined lightly with inadequate investigation and insufficient facts on which to base a long-term policy. The Natal Parks Board was on the point of establishing a marine biological survey on the whole system to see how far the deprivation of fresh water from the lake system would lead to the building of up salinity in the main lake and the adjoining water areas and whether that would have a deleterious effect on marine life. If the Minister can tell us the present position, he may perhaps set our minds at rest, and perhaps he can establish a Government policy which we can all support. There is nothing that worries me more than to find that there are divided counsels in regard to the preservation of this important heritage of ours. I hope I will have the backing of all hon. members when I say that in a matter such as this we should go ahead very carefully, step by step, and only after a careful survey has been made by a qualified scientist. If that is done, we may all be able to put our weight behind Government policy, secure in the knowledge that we have had the best advice possible.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a problem in my constituency—the Waterval River irrigation scheme. There are 84 families living along that river who irrigate 2,677 morgen with water from the river. There is usually sufficient water in the summer months but in the three dry months, from August to October, the water in the river dries up and those people suffer a great deal of damage because the crops on the lands can no longer be irrigated. Unfortunately, these three months are the most important months of the year to those farmers. Citrus fruit, wheat and vegetables are the main crops produced there. These people have been agitating now for the past 30 years for a storage dam to be built in the river. Various sites have been investigated over the course of years but four of them appeared to be uneconomic for the building of the dam because the catchment area was not large enough. But three years ago another site was investigated, the last site in the river, which has a very large catchment area, and according to the investigation that was made that site will be able to supply the needs of those people. According to statistics that were compiled and investigations that were made, those farmers need about 1,000 morgen feet of water to assist them over the three difficult months. This dam will be able to supply those 1,000 morgen feet and the estimated cost of the dam wall is r200,000 which will bring the cost to about R 100,000 per morgen, which is very economic. The Department is now investigating that site. The Department has always been very sympathetic and has helped where it could. If the result of this investigation is favourable, this work will be placed on the list of approved works. Then it will be the duty of the hon. the Minister to see that that dam is built. If that investigation is favourable, I want to ask him now to approve of that work as soon as possible so that a start will be made on the building of that dam as soon as possible. Millions of rand per annum are spent on the rehabilitation of farmers and here a large farming community can be assisted out of its difficulty at comparatively small expense. A little over 2,000 morgen can then be irrigated under that dam. The whole river irrigates 2,677 morgen but the rest is above that dam site. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist us to ensure that that work is carried out as soon as possible. There is another community in my constituency which is smaller than the one I have just mentioned. This affects 27 farmers and plus/minus 800 morgen. I am referring to the proposed Vyfhoek scheme. This scheme is still being investigated. The conditions there are very difficult. Most of those farmers have already left their land. They have gone to seek a living elsewhere. They work there on the local mines and on the roads because they cannot stay on their farms any longer. The position has of course been particularly difficult there over the past few years but in normal years the people there do not have sufficient water either and they can also be assisted out of their difficulty at reasonably small expense. We will really appreciate it very much indeed if the hon. the Minister can help us in this by ensuring that these works are accelerated and built as soon as possible.

Before I come to the main subject which I want to raise this afternoon I want to speak about the Minister’s new policy in regard to the putting down of boreholes and the subsidization of boreholes. Previously it was the policy of the Department to let a farmer pay for the cost of drilling where water was found in a borehole. I believe that that has been changed and that the farmer now has to pay for every borehole whether water is found or not. This is a matter of considerable concern to the farmers and I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should consider going back to the old policy, which is to make the farmers pay perhaps an increased rate for boreholes in which a satisfactory amount of water is actually found.

Then, secondly, I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to something in connection with the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme, something which has been brought to my notice by people living there, and that is that people who are in possession of plots there at the present time say that if they wished to buy a second plot they are allowed to do so, but the point is that they do not get an allocation of water for the second plot, so there is no sense in their buying it. Of course, their complaint is that farmers come from other areas and buy plots there, and any outsider who buys a plot there gets an allocation of water, but if he already possesses a plot and finds that he cannot make a good living because in most of these cases, as the hon. the Minister will agree, as the Minister of Lands has done, these plots are on the small side, then if he does manage to buy an adjacent plot, he cannot get an allocation of water for the second plot. I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

The subject which I really want to raise here this afternoon, is the question of the Tugela River and the conservation of water in the Tugela basin. I need hardly remind the Minister that a former Prime Minister of this country spoke in glowing terms of the Tugela valley and of the possibilities in that area. He will know of the report which has been brought out in regard to the Tugela basin, which points out all the possibilities in that area. The Prime Minister to whom I have referred, the late Mr. Strijdom, talked about settling 6,500,000 people in the Tugela basin. The report which I have here, the Thornton Smith Report which is a very interesting document proves that that is true. This Tugela basin has a huge potential for farming under irrigation, which can be done without prejudicing any long-term industrialization proposals— and that only with the water which comes from the upper catchment are of the Tugela River. This report says that the water coming from the upper catchment area alone is sufficient to supply all the principal cities and towns of the Republic and would meet all industrial and population growth for the next 35 years. There are also vast coal reserves in that area; the anthracite alone is thought to be ample for the next 140 years, and the basin is well suited to accommodate industrial development on a very large scale. In these circumstances I think the Minister will agree with me that some attention must be given to that river. Sir, I know that the Minister’s Department is very busy indeed with the Orange River scheme. I do not want the Minister’s Department to apply itself solely to the Orange River scheme, because, as I have said, no less a person than a former Prime Minister of this country has pointed out the huge potential of the Tugela basin. May I just quote from this report—

It goes on to say that the water in this area “is still sufficient if devoted entirely to urban use, to support the catchment’s 8 First Stage Industrial Projects, 10,500 acres of Second Stage Projects, and a dependent population of over 6,250,000 people”. Sir, this is a matter which should be regarded as of very great importance indeed. I raised this matter some years ago with the hon. the Minister. I have seen a report here and there but I am sorry to say that I have seen no evidence of large-scale attention that the Government is giving to this vast catchment area in what is one of the biggest rivers in South Africa, one of the rivers situated, as this report says in beautiful scenic surroundings, in an area where the land is most fertile. I think with the expenditure of a minimum amount of money on it, this basin could support a vast population. Sir, it is my firm belief that a minimum amount of money would be needed for this project, when one compares it to the Orange River scheme. I think one will find that one does not need to spend half the amount of capital which it is proposed to spend on the Orange River scheme. I would go so far as to say that one would only have to spend a quarter of that amount. The development of this basin would mean a very great deal to South Africa. It would mean a very great deal to the towns in that area, and as I have said already if it is sufficiently developed, it will have enough water for industrial development over the next 35 years. There is coal in abundance there; there is an abundant supply of labour and the land in this basin is most fertile.

When the Orange River scheme was announced last year, everyone was impressed by the thorough planning that was behind that scheme on the part of the Department of Water Affairs. A year has now gone by and we are approaching the initial stages of the development of the scheme. Quite recently the hon. the Minister announced who the consulting engineers were who would be involved in this matter. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for the careful planning that has gone into the allocation of this work and for the share that our South African engineering firms have received in the great task that lies ahead. I express this gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his Department on behalf of a profession in our country which is not always recognized, a profession that does good work but which works in silence, a profession whose work actually forms monuments but a profession which receives little credit for that work.

The Orange River scheme is not the first nor will it be the last large water scheme in our country and we are also pleased to know that it is the policy of the hon. the Minister and his Department not to forget the other schemes. That is why the opportunity of having a share in the Orange River scheme gives our engineers the chance to gain experience, together with the experience that is obtained from abroad, for the great tasks which lie ahead in respect of water conservation in our country. One of the areas of our country which has not been water conservation conscious in the past and. which has had to rely upon its natural rainfall, is the Boland, the winter rainfall area. For this reason there has been little demand in the past for water to be conserved in this part of our country. Apart from the requests that have been forthcoming recently from that part of the country to conserve our water, I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his Department for their far-sightedness in realizing that this part of the country which has a more or less regular rainfall during each winter can also be developed far more if some of the water that runs into the sea during the rainy period can be conserved and if that water can be utilized. During the past year or so various new works have been announced in the winter rainfall area. Last year we heard of the raising of the wall of the Olifants River Dam at Clanwilliam; a few days ago certain new works were again announced. Last year there was also the dam in the Hex River Valley and recently the scheme at Montague was announced. So there are also other parts within the Western Cape winter rainfall area where the conservation of water which can be added in the dry summer months to the winter rain that we receive more or less regularly, can lead to great developments in this area. That part of the country has in the first place to rely upon its agricultural resources to carry its population, and any industries that may arise there, as far as we see the position to-day, can only be those industries that can be based on the agricultural products cultivated there. For that reason, if we want to see our population increasing in this area and if we want a larger number of our people concentrated on the platteland of the Western Cape, then it is clear to us that the best use will have to be made of the rivers in the winter rainfall area. We are grateful to know—representations have been forthcoming from various districts and various quarters—that the hon. the Minister and his Department view the matter in a very broad perspective. In other words, the Western Cape is seen as an area which must be developed as a whole. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department to see the matter in this light—that no particular scheme within the Western Cape should be the only sceme that should be tackled but that the Western Cape must be seen together with all its comprehensive requirements; that the various schemes lying within this area and holding possibilities must be planned together, just as the Department planned the Orange River scheme in a comprehensive manner, a scheme that will be to the benefit of a large part of our country.

I would like to refer in the first place to the question of the supply of water on the irrigation lots at the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme. If my information is right, up to 1948, 24 inches of water was supplied annually to these irrigation lots, and round about 1949 the supply was increased to 30 inches per annum, and recently it was reduced again by 25 per cent, which brings it down to inches. Sir, I find it very difficult to understand why after years of experimenting and after years of experience at Vaalhartz the Department after having increased the water supply from 24 to 30 inches, should now reduce it to 221/2 inches. [Interjection.] I do not know why the hon. member should think that he is the only person who has anything to do with Vaalhartz. We are also interested in South Africa, and it is not the sole prerogative of the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) to take an interest in Vaalhartz. He is not the only one who is interested in the people of South Africa. At any rate, he will have an opportunity to reply. I want to say quite candidly that it would appear to me that somewhere round about 1948 election promises were probably made. We know that all irrigators are not satisfied with the amount of water which the Department of Water Affairs recommend. Usually they want more water. They are seldom satisfied and pressure is always exerted to increase the supply of water. I am not trying to insinuate anything; I am saying bluntly that it would appear to me that political pressure was brought to bear in order to get an increase, and now after a lapse of time the water supply has again been decreased.

ĩ want to make a few remarks about another matter which was raised last year by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), and that is in connection with the diversion of water from the Orange River to the Fish River. Let me just shortly recapitulate the facts. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs mentioned in this House in March 1959 that the Government had no intention whatsoever of diverting waters from the Orange River to the Fish River valley, and thereafter the Department bought up the land from certain plot owners along the Fish River valley at round about £150 per morgen. Shortly thereafter the scheme was announced and there was, of course, tremendous dissatisfaction amongst those people who had sold their plots. The Government then announced that they could buy back their plots at the price which they had been paid. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) reacted very strongly to the case put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that the hon. member for Yeoville had not painted the picture correctly; that he had not mentioned the fact that the Minister had said that they could buy back their plots. This is what the hon. member for Vereeniging said—

What are you quoting from? The speech which I made does not appear in Hansard.

No, I said that the hon. member for Vereeniging said this when he reacted to the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Order! The hon. member cannot switch from one language to the other.

As I was saying, the hon. member for Vereeniging reacted very strongly and this is what he said. The hon. member for Yeoville replied to that and said that that promise was valueless. Sir, what was the promise? The promise was that they could buy back their plots at the same price. I want to quote now from the Landbou Weekblad of 17 July 1962 (after this debate): This is what they say—

I want to make the point that the hon. member for Yeoville was perfectly right when he said that that promise, in view of the conditions attached to it was valueless, because those plots are of no value to the owners if there are no water rights attached to them. The hon. member for Yeoville was perfectly right therefore, and I repeat that this whole process was a scandal.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a few matters. I think that he will agree with me that it is generally accepted that the industrial potential of northern Natal, is practically unlimited. The difficulty there lies in the shortage of water. We have two fairly large rivers there, the Buffalo River which carries down silt and the Pivan River, one of the finest, one of the most constant and non-silt-bearing rivers in northern Natal. I want to ask the hon. the Minister—I think that they are busy with it—to complete the survey of the Pivan River as soon as possible. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there was such a water shortage last year in Vryheid, one of the most important towns in northern Natal that industry practically came to a standstill. There are persons who are anxious to set up industries there but they cannot do so because sufficient water is not available.

Another matter which is very serious is the pollution of the Black Umfolozi by the coal mines. This pollution has been taking place for some years now. Action is taken against the mines and they do rectify things for a while but with the first storm, those rivers become so polluted that if sheep walk through the river, the wool on their stomachs falls off; all the fish die and the farmers simply cannot irrigate their citrus orchards and other lands. The water is not slightly polluted. It is so badly polluted that when I myself collected some water in a bottle just below Louwsburg, there was a deposit of about three inches of coal ash in the bottle. The farmers inform me that when there are storms, particularly in the Coronation area, the river is not merely slightly polluted but black deposits are left right down to its mouth. This not only affects the vegetation and the people living on the banks, but it also affects the fish life in that river. I have again been informed that the river has again been seriously polluted and I will greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will put his foot down and compel those mines to take the necessary steps to ensure that no pollution takes place there in the future. It is of no avail for the mines merely to use a purification process. Their slag heaps are placed in such a way that when there is a storm, the storm water carries those slag heaps with it and it all finds its way into the river. Not only must they ensure that those slag heaps are not washed into the river but all the future slag heaps of the mines must be situated in such places that it will not be possible for the storm water to carry the slag into the river.

I think that the Orange River scheme has been hailed with great satisfaction in all parts of the country and there is no doubt that the scheme has very great possibilities. But there are signs today that under the administration of this Government the danger exists that this scheme can degenerate into a worthless thing in the near future if matters continue as they are at the moment. I think mat the hon. the Minister should consider the advisability, as we on this side have suggested, of bringing an Orange River authority into being for this great scheme like the Tennessee Valley authority in America. When an authority of this nature is established, we do not want to see the control over the Orange River scheme being taken away from Parliament. To tell the truth, I would like to see parliamentary control being strengthened by, for example, regularly referring the essential parts of that scheme to a Select Committee of this House, as we have a Select Committee on irrigation matters. We can retain parliamentary control but we can also ensure that the whole scheme is properly administered if we have something similar to the Tennessee Valley authority—an Orange River authority.

I notice from the Estimates that up to 31 March a sum of R500,000 has already been spent in the form of capital. Where are the works on which that R500,000 was spent? Where are those capital works? On what was that amount of R500,000 spent? We want to know what has been done with the country’s money up to the present. We have known about that scheme now for more than a year and let us admit that the Government have hardly done anything about it as yet. The appointment of the consulting engineers was delayed; there was delay with the plans; a delay in all respects.

The whole thing got off to a bad start because the hon. the Minister never consulted the important Economic Advisory Council which the hon. the Prime Minister specially appointed. There are representatives of the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Institute of Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce and the agricultural unions serving on that council. That would surely have been the appropriate body to consult in working out this scheme, not only from the point of view of the Department of Water Affairs but from the point of view of all the various Departments who are interested in this great scheme. That was the first mistake that was made. When the hon. the Prime Minister explained the scope of his Economic Advisory Council to this House he said—

This is clearly a matter for more than one Department. Of all the wrong signs that we see on the horizon in connection with this great and fine scheme, the mistakes which have been made are to be found in the granting of contracts. I believe that the South African contractors and South African consulting engineers did not receive their fair share of these contracts. I believe that insufficient notice was given throughout South Africa to consulting engineers to enable them to apply for a share in this scheme. I know that the professional and official organizations were informed in this regard but when the hon. the Minister advertised for civil consulting engineers abroad, he also advertised in the newspapers overseas and he asked all the professional organizations to ask their members to participate in this scheme. I want to know how those contracts were entered into. The standard professional way in which a contract of that nature is entered into is to make use of consulting engineers, of consulting engineers who then approach large construction firms. I have heard that in this case many of those contracts with consulting engineers were entered into not in a professional way but through other persons who were appointed, possibly by the Department of Water Affairs. I want to know what happened in connection with the contracts that were concluded; I also want to know how they were concluded I know how much was paid to the persons concluding those contracts. I make no accusation, but I want to know how the contracts were concluded, what commission was paid and what expenses were incurred in connection with those contracts.

I do not want to mention any names but I want to mention one example of what I have in mind. I have here a confidential report in connection with one of these overseas’ firms that was appointed. In this report I find the following—

What are you quoting from now?

If I have the permission of the person who gave this confidential document to me I will give it to the hon. the Minister. I hope that the hon. the Minister will go into the matter to see whether he has not perhaps made a great mistake in regard to at least one of the foreign companies that he has appointed.

Why do you quote from a document if you are not prepared to tell us where it comes from?

As I said, I am quite prepared to give it to the hon. the Minister. This is a confidential document that has been given to me. If I have the permission of the person who gave it to me, I will submit it to the hon. the Minister. There was another large firm which made such a mess of one large work for which it was responsible that the World Bank went into the work constructed by that firm and hesitated to grant that particular firm any further loans. I mention all these things to show that the whole thing has become too big for the hon. the Minister and the Department of Water Affairs and that we do perhaps need an Orange River Authority to look after this large scheme, an Authority similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority. If no such body is forthcoming the hon. the Minister is going to find within the next year that he no longer holds the reins of this scheme in his hands and he will have to prepare himself to face tremendous chaos in connection with this scheme which can be such a wonderful scheme for the whole of South Africa.

I have decided to reply immediately especially after the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) entered the debate, because I am so afraid that we may reduce him to such a low level that I want to take him out at once. The hon. member for Orange Grove has thought fit to explain to the Committee with great wisdom and many gestures how incompetent the Minister and the Department and therefore the Government are to launch this great scheme. He quoted inter alia, from a confidential document he possesses how we failed to follow the ordinary procedure and failed to consult engineers before we awarded our contracts, but that we awarded contracts arbitrarily …

But he is mad, that fellow …

On a point of order, Sir …

Order! Who said that?

I said so, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

It will be difficult, Mr. Chairman.

And the hon. member must apologize. I call upon the hon. member to apologize.

I apologize to the Chair.

On a point of order is that apology in order? He did not insult the Chair; he insulted an hon. member of this House.

The hon. member has apologized.

To the Chair, Mr. Chairman; he said specifically to the Chair.

Order! I asked the hon. member to apologize and he has apologized …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member specifically …

Order! I am sorry; I have accepted it already.

Now I wish to say only this to the hon. member for Orange Grove: It is very clear to me now why as a party political propagandist he did not really achieve much where he occupied that position. One should make sure of one’s facts before one draws inferences, especially in a House such as this. The hon. member puts the cart before the horse. He charges me in the first instance with having struggled for months on end before we appointed our consultant engineers. But we have appointed them now. Now I should like to know from him which construction contracts we have awarded? We are at the first stage where we have appointed consultant engineers who will now collaborate with the Department of Water Affairs in regard to planning, the drafting and the preparation of contracts. Then we shall issue those forms of contracts for tenders, internationally and in South Africa

Now only?

Apparently the hon. member was in another place, or he was dreaming; he does not know what is going on in South Africa. If he has charged us with not having reached the contract stage yet, I would not have blamed him. But he comes along, mind you, with chapter and verse and proof and says we have already done this, that and the other thing, which is completely untrue and incorrect. I think the hon. member ought to show a greater sense of responsibility than that. I take it amiss of him. We know this is a scheme that is going to mean much to South Africa. That is why it has attracted the attention and the interest of the whole population; it has attracted the notice of everybody with a knowledge of something great in the world. The hon. member must not try to be so obsessed with his own party, perhaps for party political gain, that he cannot see South Africa. Let him rather follow the example of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who introduced this debate in a dignified manner. I just want to tell the hon. member his information is completely wrong. There is not a word of truth in it. We have not awarded a single contract. Up to now, since 1910, the Department of Water Affairs has itself tackled all Government works and major irrigation works in this country. We have never given it out on tender. This is the first time we have departed from that policy and there are good reasons for doing so. One of the reasons is because we do not wish to delay the implimentation of this great scheme, and secondly because we do not wish to tackle it at the expense of other essential works which have to be carried out in this country in the interim. The third reason is because we saw an opportunity in this to integrate the best and the greatest experience from overseas with the best and the greatest experience of our local engineers. From all quarters I have had nothing but thanks for the manner in which the Government has decided on the consortiums who have to do the consulting work for the various projects allotted to them.

May I ask a question? Contracts were entered into with the consortiums were they not?

A contract is entered into with a consortium to execute a certain piece of work and that contract is entered into on the basis of established formulae and established rules of ethics that have been drafted by the various consulting engineering organizations, which in our own country correspond closely with those of other countries. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to contracts that have been awarded, contracts for construction works. The hon. member obviously does not know the difference between a contract for a consulting engineer and one for a construction engineer. But I do not wish to spend any more time on that now.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Albany cordially for the positive manner in which he introduced this debate, and for the appeal he has made to everyone to make a contribution to the promotion and the fulfilment of this scheme. The hon. member also referred to Basutoland which really forms a part of the catchment area of the Orange River. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) also referred to that and the hon. member for Albany has asked whether any arrangements have been made with that Government. He also said that according to his information not much of that water is used for irrigation purposes. My reply is as follows: Even if Basutoland were to make every possible use of the water entering the Orange River through its territory, it will not make any substantial difference to our planning for the development of the Orange River. He then asks whether I think that the land that has still to be expropriated will be available in time for the construction of these projects, and my reply is “Yes”.

Then the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to individual dams that could be constructed in his constituency. The hon. member for Lydenburg-Barberton spoke in the same vein. Both of them made out a very good case. I just want to tell those two hon. gentlemen that the Department is engaged on the planning of each of those possible schemes; we shall continue doing all the necessary research so that we may be well informed when the time comes to consider them. I should like to tell the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet specifically, that the dam he has referred to has been included in the Orange River project for raising later on. However, I cannot promise him that the raising will occur before the water gets there or before it is necessary.

The hon. member for South Coast raised some very interesting matters, particularly with reference to the pollution of water. Before I get to the hon. member for South Coast I should like to dispose of the hon. member for Albany. He asked whether we were taking into account the expansion of industries under the Orange River planning, and whether water would be available for possible urban and industrial expansion that may fall within the scope of that project. I want to assure him that we are definitely taking into account the industrial as well as the urban consumption demands on that water. The scheme has been so planned that it is flexible and may be adapted to needs that may arise and which we cannot even visualize at the present time.

The hon. member for Orange Grove of course has already heard the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister on his Vote in respect of the establishment of an Orange River Authority Board on the lines of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board. The Government has decided not to adopt that course. The Government feels, having full regard to the enormous scope of the whole scheme, that it is still more essential that the State should be held responsible for all the planning, and for control over the planning, and certain measures will be announced soon whereby provision will be made on the highest level for the development and the planning of the entire project—apart from the construction that has been allotted to Water Affairs over and above construction works that are directly related to the provision of water, there are so many more things to be done that are of much wider ambit, and the Government is geared to that and it is creating organizations and bodies that will be announced soon by the Prime Minister.

Next I come to the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member for South Coast asked me whether I paid attention to the possible pollution by industries to come in that area. The reply is that the policy is to implement the intention of the Legislature that municipal and industrial effluents should be purified to prescribed standards and returned to a suitable public stream for re-use. Permits for complete or partial exemption from this requirement will only be issued provided the industry can make out a sufficiently strong case on economic or other grounds to satisfy myself and the Department that the exemption is war-rented. Water is too precious a commodity in South Africa to dispose of effluents in evaporation plants or by irrigation wasteland or by irrigating crops by persons who are not bona fide farmers in competition with such farmers. Regional standards under the Water Act which cover the whole of the Republic were promulgated in April 1962 and these will be applied within the origin of the complex to ensure conservation of water supplies and purity of rivers.

Then the hon. member also referred to the pollution of the sea. In that regard I agree with him that it is wrong to think that water that has been polluted can just be allowed to flow into the sea, and that the sea will purify it. Under this same Act of 1956 the Minister and the Department of Water Affairs are being held responsible for the protection of marine fauna and flora and marine plant life. I agree with him that there is certain material that contains toxin poisonous material that cannot be permitted to enter the sea in an unpurified state, and which may have a detrimental effect upon the sea and plant life. I wish to assure the hon. member that we are not losing sight of that aspect, and that we propose, as we obtain more information in connection with the research that is being conducted, relative to sea life and the reactions of marine fauna and flora to those poisonous materials, to apply more strongly and to an increasing extent, our protective measures in respect of the pollution of the sea.

The hon. member raised another matter and that was the control which we had over the water coming from our eastern borders. The policy which is followed at the moment is as follows: Where a river lies within a Bantu area which extends up to the coast the Department does not undertake the construction of water works unless approached by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to do so. In the latter case the Department of Bantu Administration and Development finances the work. Pollution control will not be exercised unless the Department of Bantu Administration and Development calls on the Department of Water Affairs to undertake this. That is where the whole catchment area of the river up to the coast falls within the boundaries of a Bantu area.

Where a river enters European territory after traversing a Bantu area the Department will assume responsibility for storage or other development or pollution control in the European area. Should storage or diversion or other works be required in localities within the Bantu area in order to supply water in the European area below, the necessary arrangements are made on behalf of Water Affairs by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. We are now consulting with the Department of Bantu Administration in respect of the question of these water resources which are partly used maybe by a newly developing Bantu state and then flowing into the Republic. I hope we will be successful in framing suitable amendments to the Water Act, if necessary, as well as to the Act governing that territory. But we are giving this matter consideration. I also hope to be in a position next year to make a further statement in this regard.

Now I should like to come to the Hluhluwe Dam. The hon. member for South Coast and I have had several interviews and we have also had various differences on the effect of the Hluhluwe Dam on the Hluhluwe Game Reserve and particularly on the St. Lucia Lake. Of course the Hluhluwe River is one of many rivers, as the hon. member for South Coast himself has said, that contribute to the waters that are carried down to the St. Lucia Lake complex, which really consists of three different smaller lakes, with outlets into the sea. The total contribution of the Hluhluwe River to the water that flows into the St. Lucia Lake annually—and this was actually taken before the Umfolozi River was diverted so as to flow into the sea and no longer into the lake—was 19.6 per cent. There are indications that the saline content is increasing; there are clear indications to that effect at the lake, and I agree that we must take certain measures to see whether we cannot preserve it as a nature resort and a beauty spot and an attraction for tourists for generations to come. As I have said, there are indications that the water is becoming more saline at times. I do not know whether it is becoming permanently more salty or whether it depends on the influx of fresh water. However, there are indications of deterioration in the animal life, in the fish life, possibly accompanied by a deterioration in the bird life also, and possibly in the plant life of those lakes as well. The construction of the Hluhluwe Dam has the effect of reducing the flow of the Hluhluwe River at that lake by only 2.2 per cent of all the water flowing into that lake. Therefore I cannot subscribe to the view that the building of that dam must be held responsible for the possible dreadful deterioration and destruction of all that is fine and beautiful and worth preserving at the St. Lucia Lake. I am at the moment drafting a memorandum to the Cabinet asking for the appointment of a commission of experts, well trained scientists together with representatives of the Departments interested in the matter (I am thinking of senior officials and possible experts in the Departments of Bantu Administration Forestry, Agriculture, Water Affairs, Nature Conservation, Tourism, Industrial Development) and scientists in the various spheres of biology and ethnology, together with officials, to make a thorough study of conditions there. I am thinking for instance, of a few terms of reference I should like to insert, inter alia, whether in the course of time increasing salinization of the lake has taken place, and if so, to what extent that has had, or is still having, an adverse effect on the ecology of the lake, the causes of the salinization, the adverse consequences of changes that may take place there; what measures should be taken to preserve as far as possible the St. Lucia Lake as a natural asset for the future, having due regard to all sectors of the national interest such as, interalia, represented in the Departments I have just mentioned, and perhaps a few more to be added.

Will there be a representative of the Provincial Administration of Natal on it?

I think it is necessary. Yes, I shall see to it. I think it is very important that if we have an inquiry of this nature, it should be a thorough inquiry, and I also think it will be an inquiry that will take some time. It may even extend to beyond a year if it is to be properly done. That is what we have in mind. Of course I cannor say what the Cabinet decision will be, but I have every reason to assume that Cabinet approval of the memorandum I am going to submit to them will be obtained with the next few weeks.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S M. van Niekerk) said she had understood from the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) that water for only one plot can be given at State settlements. She is quite correct. The only control we have at the present time to prevent State settlements falling into the hands of a large chain or syndicate of a few wealthy people, and to ensure that they will be preserved for the purpose for which they have been established namely to provide as many people as possible with a proper livelihood, is the control we have under the Water Act, namely our being able, in the case of a man holding more than one plot, to deprive him of the water rights in respect of the second plot. But that is a power we have been applying judiciously. For instance, at Boegoeberg, where the hon. member for Gardens is also acquainted with the circumstances, we have the position that on the southern side of the river there are plots that are very small, and on the northern side the plots are bigger. We have consolidated there. But the Water Act provides that when a person buys two plots, then I do not immediately say that he cannot have water for the two plots. No, then I have to call in the Land Board to investigate and make a recommendation to me as to whether I should give the man water for his two plots, and as to whether I should deschedule the one or not, and I must act in accordance with their recommendation. That is what we have always done, but we apply the provision wisely and judiciously and with discretion. But we have to retain control in order to ensure that her where the State has spent a lot of money, it does not fall into the hands of just a few rich people.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) referred to the development of the Tugela River area. We realize that development is inevitable there, and that it is in fact imperative. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that we are at the moment tackling the development of the Umgeni River (which will cost no less than R7,000,000), as well as the Pongola River development (which will cost approximately R36,000,000), and so I think the work we have to do at the Tugela River must be left in abeyance for the time being. The hon. member for Gardens has told me he has now discovered that we first increased the water quota fixed for Vaalhartz, and that we have now reduced it again. The hon. member is wrong. The fixed quota at Vaalhartz of so many inches per morgen is still exactly the same as it has always been, namely 30 inches per morgen per annum. What has happened now is that we had to reduce it because we were compelled to introduce rationing for the whole Vaal River owing to the dry season, and because the Vaal River, which has to supply such an extremely important part of our country with water, at the present time contains only about 55 per cent of its capacity. In other words, the water level is lower than it has been for many years and that is why we have now reduced the quota, but it is a form of rationing. Rationing has to be introduced when there is insufficient water.

Just temporarily?

Only temporarily. If for instance we were to have rain now and the dam filled up, we would increase it again as much as possible, but if it has to stand over till next year, I am afraid we shall not be able to increase the quota for irrigation. We shall hardly be able to maintain it there. We have fixed it in this way in the hope that we shall be able to maintain it at that level, and then we warn the farmers in advance so that they will understand the position and know how to plant and how to organize so as to adapt themselves to the circumstances.

The hon. member for Drakensberg as well as the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) asked me a question in connection with drilling services. It is correct that two years ago we did away with an inequality in our country. The country was divided into two parts, on no scientific basis. There was a proclaimed drilling area and a proclaimed non-drilling area. The farmers living on the one side of the line in the proclaimed areas enjoyed much greater privileges and received more State aid when drilling for water, with Government drills as well as with private drills, than the others. We have now equalized that position, and I have consulted the Cabinet and explained that it will involve the State in greater expense, but they were kind enough at the end of 1961, to approve an additional expenditure of R300,000, but that the changes I wish to make should fall within the framework of that expenditure. The new regulations which then came into operation provided for this, namely that where this discrimination and difference between proclaimed drilling areas and proclaimed non-drilling areas existed, they were equalized. Secondly, that necessarily meant, on the other hand, that certain people who had enjoyed certain privileges in the proclaimed areas had to be restricted to some extent in order to make possible the equalization with their fellow-countrymen on the other side of the line. In the meantime we had a number of problems and difficulties, particularly because it also meant that farmers holding less than 30 morgen were also excluded from any benefits under the new scheme of last year. Secondly, it meant that people who had drilled to a lesser depth than 100 ft. were eliminated as far as the successful as well as the unsuccessful holes were concerned. Thirdly, it meant that the man who drilled a dry hole with a State drill also had to make a payment for the unsuccessful drilling operations in the same proportion as for the successful one where he found water. We went into these matters and I went back to the Cabinet. I may just say that prior to 1961 or 1962 the State annually contributed a subsidy of R2,000,000 per annum to assist the farmers in meeting the expense connected with drilling operations. The additional R300,000 they granted me last year increased it to R2,300,000, and this year I have received an additional R500,000, which means that the State since 1961 now contributes R800,000 more in subsidies to the farmers and assists them more with their drilling operations than ever before. We are now drafting regulations soon to be published, as to how it will now work. But broadly, I may say that farmers holding from 10 to 30 morgen of land, the small farmers, will also qualify now, or will again be eligible for Government aid in the form of the subsidy; people who have to drill to a depth of less than 100 feet but more than 50 feet for water will also become eligible; we now want to differentiate there so that a man with an unsuccessful hole will pay less in proportion to its depth for the drilling services completed than is paid for a successful hole in proportion to its depth. It will be on a sliding scale, according to a sliding tariff. Now there has been a request that we should make it retrospective, but that is quite impossible. If the principle of retrospectiveness were accepted, where would it end? If, for instance, the Minister of Finance were to increase taxation, and he made it retrospective for a few years, would the public be satisfied with that? They would of course be satisfied if he were to reduce it retrospectively. That is the position and I regret I cannot accept it.

Just to come back to the Orange River scheme for a moment—the Minister digressed into other fields of activity ——I want to say that the object of the Orange River scheme was to conserve the water that we have been losing over so many years and which perennially flows away to the sea. Now we have a scheme which I am sure is going to be of great benefit to our country and it will certainly play a very big part in the economy of our country. But the point that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister is a matter which he almost touched on but did not entirely develop and that is whether the time has not come now that the scheme has been enshrined in the legislation and the finance has been arranged and the technical experts have been sought for, to evaluate from a scientific and economic point of view the use of the water for the best purposes. That is an important step which the Minister will be obliged to take in the very near future. I understand that a great deal of the conservation of the water will eventually be used for large irrigation projects and other projects of a similar nature, and I believe that it is of paramount importance that the exploitation of this water potential should be characterized by the principle of the most advantageous economic use of the water to serve the largest number of people and also for the longest period of time.

Certain interesting figures have been given by the C.S.I.R. with regard to the use of water and what it can produce. For instance the market value of R1 of lucerne requires on the average about 16,000 gallons of water; potatoes produced under irrigation schemes will require for a similar value of R1 market value, 4,000 gallons; mealies produced under irrigation schemes would require 17,000 gallons of water per marketable R value. As against that we find that in the industrial field to produce R1 s worth of marketable steel would only require the use of 60 gallons of water; oil-from-coal, 600 gallons of water; pulp, 300 gallons of water; cheese, butter and milk-powder, 200, 300 and 300 gallons respectively. So the problem that does arise is how is one to make use of this water, to what length must the irrigation schemes go, and whether the time has not come to integrate the whole system of irrigation schemes with the system of dryland farming and pastoral farming. That is the problem which is exercising the minds of those who are scientifically interested in the best use of water in our country. I do not know that the Minister has dealt with this problem at all, because in the torrent of words to which we have been subjected, we have heard a great deal about the benefits that will result to the whole of the community. Of that I do not think there can be the slightest doubt, but in the emotional upheaval of what we have achieved or are on the threshold of achieving, I think we must give a much more sober thought to this important factor. I do not want to deal at too great length with the subject, because it is a highly technical subject, but I do know this that at a recent gathering, I think in Bloemfontein, certain experts, amongst whom was one of the C.S.I.R. representatives, papers were read which dealt specifically with the subject, the question of providing what the Minister for instance wants to refer to a specific commission in regard to St. Lucia. I do not think that that even would have the priority that is necessary here, namely, to establish the necessary committee of these scientists who could deal scientifically with the evaluation of the economic use of water. I feel that that is a very important factor to take into account in dealing with the Orange River scheme, something that should not be lost sight of and I think in that respect the hon. Minister should give us some information as to what thinking he has had in that direction.

If I may interrupt, I want to point out that the council or committee that I have referred to is to give the Government a lead as to the utilization of the water and future development.

Thank you very much. From what the Minister had said, I came to the conclusion that that committee would not consider industrial use of water and so on, but if that is a comprehensive investigation and if it will deal with the whole position of the use of irrigation in farming as against the other forms of use of water also, then I am satisfied. I hope that when Parliament reassembles, we may perhaps get some further interim-statement from the hon. Minister indicating what progress he has made in that direction, because I do regard it as an urgent matter in this tremendous development.

There are a few matters I should like to raise. One is in connection with the utterances of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). When I made an interjection, I was told by him that I do not have the sole right to talk about Vaalhartz. I readily concede that, but I should like to give him the piece of advice that he should not talk about something he knows nothing about. It is a bad thing to do so. He said certain things here in regard to the water available for Vaalhartz that were incorrect. I need not reply to that, for the Minister has already replied to it. But the hon. member said he understood certain election promises were made in 1948.

No, it is wrong, the way you put it.

I immediately noted it. He said it was 24 inches, and then it was increased to 30 inches and now it has been reduces to 22 inches. Then he said that in 1948 certain election promises were made in connection with water. No I should like to tell the hon. member that the election promises did not emanate from the National Party, although they did emanate from the United Pary when water was promised by building weirs in the Riet River.

How does that concern Vaalhartz?

The hon. member referred to election promises. At Vaalhartz not a single election promise was made in connection with water. The fact of the matter is that 24 inches of water was granted. A commission was appointed by the late Advocate Strijdom to investigate the water needs at Vaalhartz, and after that Commission had reported and recommended that the quota should be raised from 24 inches to 30 inches, it was raised to 30 inches. No promise was made. An election promise was made in regard to Riet River, where sand, stones and everything were carted away to build weirs, and the hon. the Minister is giving effect to that to-day. That is the promise made there at the time. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that when he discusses Vaalhartz again, he should first acquaint himself with the facts. Then he will be able to talk about it, and he will be able to do the Vaalhartz farmers a favour.

I should like to point out to the Minister that he ought to have a survey made regarding the water needs of Vaalhartz. The position unfortunately is that there are holdings that could probably do with 20 inches of water in a year, holdings which have, as the farmers call it there, become acclimatized (“die klimaat opgedoen het”). But then there are sloping holdings, and many sloping holdings that cannot possibly come out on that water. There is too little water for those sloping holdings to enable the farmers to raise a proper crop on it. Now provision is made for those farmers of Vaalhartz to buy extra water if the normal quota of water has been consumed. In the first application they can buy 4 inches of water at a fixed price of 59.6c per inch. There are farmers who have to purchase that amount of water in order to save their crops. But having used this water, if they still need water, and there are such farmers, they may buy a second quantity of 4 inches of water at 89.8c per inch. There are farmers who have to buy that additional water too. Then they may purchase a further 2 inches at 119.3c per inch. The normal price of water for the normal quota work out at R4.25, but if it is taken into account what the 10 inches of extra water they may have costs, it works out at R8.35. I think the Minister will agree that that price is too high. The normal quota is R4.25 and the extra 10 inches of water works out at R8.35. In this connection I should like to ask him to have an investigation made to see whether anything can be done. Mr. Chairman, the farmers of Vaalhartz are somewhat uneasy. They are aware of the water in Vaaldam at the present time, and they are also aware of the requirements of water from Vaaldam. But should those parts meet with a catastrophe so that the water supply is not augmented, and if later on there were to be a further cut in the temporary quota they are now receiving, the people at Vaalhartz are going to be in a difficult position.

All I am asking is that should something like that happen—and let all of us hope it will not happen—the Minister will then give them timeous notice of the imminent danger in that regard. I hope he will do that, because when the people cultivate their holdings—they do not have supplementary incomes—they have to get every cent they can from the holdings and if there is a total crop failure because of a water shortage those farmers will be in a very difficult position.

There is a further matter at Vaalhartz I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention. There are poplar trees along the canals and their roots pass under the canals and penetrate into the fields. I personally made an investigation, and found that the roots impair the fertility of the soil next to the wire fence for a distance of 30 paces into that holding. When it is assumed that the holding is only 30 morgen in extent and 30 paces of the full length of the holding is impaired by the roots, that make the soil unfertile, the Minister will realize the losses it is causing the farmers. I want to urge him earnestly to take steps. I have a soft spot for a tree, and do not like to see a tree destroyed, but when the livelihood of a farmer is threatened, I think the owner has the right to ask the Minister to devote attention to it, and if there is no other alternative, those trees will have to be destroyed. I am sorry to make this recommendation, but it is my duty to point out what a threat the trees constitute.

Now I should like to know from the Minister: When the Orange River scheme, the dam at Norvalspont and the tunnel are built, there are farmers, and I am one of them, who feel very uneasy about the labourers that will be employed for the construction of the canal. Shafts will have to be sunk, and it must be expected that a considerable number of Natives will probably be used to do the work. How are those people going to be controlled? If the shaft is sunk on my farm—and that possibility exists—and the Natives working there are not properly controlled, and as we have jackalproof fences around the camps in which the stock roam freely day and night, I think the Minister can imagine what will happen there. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Kimberley (North), save to say that as the late Mr. Strijdom found it necessary to investigate the position at Vaalhartz, that suggests that there is at least some truth in what the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has said. But I propose to deal shortly with the questions which arise in connection with the Jossini Dam at Pongola. The hon. the Minister was asked in the Other Place last year whether a survey had been made to ascertain what crops could most beneficially be grown on the land to be irrigated under the Pongola scheme, and if so, what the result of the survey was. His reply was that an Inter-Departmental Committee into the agricultural potential of the area was appointed in April 1961 and he further said that the Committee had submitted a report which recommend that an experimental farm be established to investigate the cultivation problems, the crops and the diseases. Now that Committee was appointed more than two years ago and one presumes that something has been done. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell the House what has been found out in regard to the possible crops to be grown there. It has never ceased to amaze me that in 1963 we can invest over R36,000,000 in a dam without knowing what crops will be suitable. It seems a short-sighted policy. I raised this matter with the Minister of Lands and he said that the building of that scheme had been slowed down. I should like this Minister to give us some information in that regard as well. Is it correct that the building of the scheme has been slowed down, and if so, why? The Minister of Lands raised another point which I found interesting. He said that he was considering the possibility of reverting to the original idea of growing sugar there. This is the first time I have heard it said officially that it was ever the intention to grow sugar there, but we are now told that that was the original intention. Does the Minister agree with what the Minister of Lands said, that the reversion to the idea of growing sugar was being considered, and was the growing of sugar there one of the matters considered by this Committee, and what are the results of any experiments made? I hope he will tell us, if sugar is not to be grown there, what other crops it is intended should be grown there.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say, in reply to the hon. member for South Coast, that he was going to recommend to the Cabinet the establishment of an Inter-Departmental Committee to investigate amongst other things, the effect on places like St. Lucia, the damming of the waters there. I believe it would serve: a very good purpose indeed. One merely regrets that this was not done, as was suggested, three years ago, because we have now reached the stage where the dams have been implemented, and what do we do now if this Committee finds that those dams are detrimental’ to the St. Lucia scheme. It underlines the point that the wise course would have been, as this side of the House suggested, to have appointed such a Committee before the Hluhluwe Dam was commenced. But my interest this afternoon is mainly in the Pongola Dam, and’ I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to indicate just what is taking place there, be¿ cause the report of the secretary for Water Affairs, the latest one available, is for the period ended 31 March 1961, and there, is reference in it to the Pongola scheme, but of course it is more than two years out of date,, and that is greatly to be regretted, that we-have to consider the Minister’s Vote when we’ have merely a report from the Department: I which is so out of date.

I would like to clear up one point. I think there was a misunderstanding when I apologized to the Chair. I think you, Sir, thought I was apologizing to the House; I must apologize to the House and not to you. I hope that point has now been cleared up, and I do so.

There are a few things. I heard here to-day which hurt me very much. When the Orange River scheme was announced in this House, everybody in South Africa rejoiced. I remember the days when this scheme was priority No. 1. It was said at the time that water was worth more to South Africa than gold and diamonds, and I agreed. But now we hear a few discordant notes, and I am very sorry about it. I called the hon. member for Orange Grove a certain name and I just want to tell him that the people of South Africa will settle accounts with him for the statements he made in this House. We are not dealing here with political horse-trading, but with the soul and the bread and butter of South Africa, and with people who have endured hard times for years. Whilst we have the greatest confidence in the Department of Water Affairs and the wonderful work they have done in this short time, so much so that even Mr. Shand said it was astonishing that they could have worked out all those statistics in such a short while, I also want to pay tribute to another great man, the Prime Minister, who gave the green light and said that he did not want to build small dams but that he wanted to do something which would save South Africa, and the Orange River will save a large part of South Africa. Although the Minister of Water Affairs is being belittled to-day, I can tell him that the people of South Africa pay tribute to him as a man who has done much to promote this scheme. If the people know how little the hon. member for Orange Grove did in regard to this matter, they will certainly not pay tribute to him for the attitude he adopted here to-day. The farmers of the Fish River Valley are very grateful for what the Government has done. In that valley the people were almost poor Whites. It is significant that hon. members opposite all flee from the rural constituencies, like the hon. members for Green Point and Gardens. The hon. member for Gardens made certain remarks here in regard to the scheme in terms of which the Government bought out that land. I wonder whether he realizes that those people were so poor that they could hardly buy food, and that the Government did them a special favour by buying their land, which saved them from ruin and enabled them to buy other land and to make a living. The land which was bought out was purchased with the full consent and co-operation of all those people. It was a voluntary scheme and they were not forced to sell. Therefore I deplore the fact that outsiders tried to drag these people through the political mire. There we have the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). I want to thank him for the kind things he said, and in future we will not fight with each other, but we will co-operate to turn this scheme, the largest of its kind in the world, into a paradise. From a poor area we will convert it into a land of milk and honey. By means of all the hydro-electric power generated the Eastern Province will be completely changed. They talk about the Tennessee Valley, but the Eastern Province and the whole of the Free State will become the Tennessee Valley of South Africa. I am not referring only to the land which will be irrigated. We are concerned here with great industrial development. The Tennessee Valley scheme was not tackled merely to irrigate the land; power was also generated, and whereas it was the poorest part of America it is to-day the richest area. Therefore we rejoice about the Orange River scheme and we hope to get the best brains in the world to help us to carry it out. Just think of the money which will be put into circulation. Those districts which became so impoverished that half the population had to seek refuge in the cities will be given new life. Those small towns will become large cities in 10 or 15 years. Therefore I cannot understand that whilst the United Party in general sided with the Government in getting this scheme under way, discordant notes are now being sounded and there is misunderstanding, and that it is being exploited. This Parliament has to deal with the bread and butter of the people in the interior, and we are surprised to hear such discordant notes like those we have had from the hon. member for Orange Grove. I never would have thought that possible from a man with so much intelligence. The day when the Orange River scheme was announced was a greater day to us than the day when diamonds were discovered in Kimberley, or gold on the Rand. To us the river and its waters are something sacred. Those areas will again be able to afford a living to large sections of our population which to-day have to go to the cities as unskilled labour. It will also assist the gold mines and the industries. Therefore we ask that the Government should not allow speculation to take place, but that it will implement its policy. There was also opposition to the Tennessee Valley scheme, and I should not like to see the same opposition here. Therefore we ask that the Government should proceed with it step by step, and we have every confidence in the Government and the Minister.

I am glad that the hon. member for Cradock had the opportunity of concluding this debate on such a high note. He said that he blamed the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) for trying to make political capital out of the assistance which the State rendered to the farmers along the Fish River. I want to associate myself with that and I particularly want to voice my protest against these final words: “The whole process was a scandal”.

Hear, hear!

I do not even want to talk about the hon. member for Yeoville. (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He will not show his face at Cradock on the same platform as the hon. member for Cradock and myself. I challenge him to do so.

Fix the date.

The hon. member cannot hope to achieve any success by using a lot of lies and misrepresentations, when they can be repudiated publicly. The hon. member for Gardens does not know what went on, and I do not blame him for not knowing what the position is, and the stupid interjection made by the hon. member for Yeoville while the hon. member for Cradock was talking, asking what happened to these people’s water rights, just shows how little he knows about water. The land of these people was bought together with the water rights, and in this case the State did it with a specific object, not only to assist the farmers who could not hold out until the water of the Orange River could get there to assist them, but also to assist the farmers who remained behind. Therefore it was general knowledge that if we bought the land the Department of Lands would become the owner and it would immediately deschedule that land, so that the water which was scheduled for that land would be made available to those people who remained behind. There were some propagandists who tried to sow dissension, but they did not achieve much success, and the hon. member for Yeoville still feels unhappy about it. I then said: I heard this story that we had bought the land too cheaply. Before we stepped in no farmer could get an average price of R150 per morgen for his land, and the State bought it at an average price of R300 per morgen, and we did not expropriate it, but it was sold to us willingly. That is why the majority of those people sold their land. When we made the offer, the intention was not that the offer should remain open for two or three years before we bought the land. To those people who felt that they had made a mistake I said that if they wanted their land back, I would do my best to let them buy it back at the same price that the State had paid for it.

Without the water rights?

No, let me explain. Do hon. members know how many applications we received? Two, out of a hundred. Only two wanted their land back, and we gave it back to them. Because we had given them notice that it would be descheduled, they again had to apply to have it scheduled, and in the case of both of them the board recommended that it be scheduled, and the application was granted. That was what all the fuss was about, as if these people were very unfairly treated. I have purposely replied on this point to make the matter clear.

Will the Minister please tell us, when he offered to buy the land, did he then know that it was the plan of his Department to proceed with the Orange River scheme, and particularly with the Fish River aspect of it, and did he tell those people so?

Of course everybody knew.

I want to give the hon. member and the House and the whole country the assurance that when we made this offer to those people we told them that it was part of the whole plan to take the water of the Orange River to the Fish River, and the questions put to me were as to how long it would take, and I said at least seven years as from that date, but I put it too low, because from that date it may be eight or nine years. The people knew that there was that possibility and that that was part of the Orange River plan, and in spite of that they acted as they did. That is also the reason why only two of them said they had made a mistake, and both were prosperous people who could have held out for much longer than seven years, even though they had no income from their land because of other sources of revenue available to them. Consequently it cannot be said at all that people there were under a misapprehension or that the State tried to cheat them. The whole object was to save those people who would have been ruined.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) spoke about the Pongola Poort scheme and said that in 1962 already I had appointed a committee to make certain investigations there in regard to which products could be cultivated, and he thought the matter was rather delayed and that it showed a lack of foresight. I do not blame him, because he came into this House only recently and therefore he became interested in the matter too late. The fact is that my predecessor instructed the Natural Resources Development Board to advise the Government as to which of the two rivers, the Pongola or the Orange, should be investigated first. The council investigated the matter and recommended that the Pongola Poort scheme should be developed first, and together with their report they delivered a supplementary report dealing with sugar. In that supplementary report they advanced reasons as to why the Pongola Poort scheme should receive preference, and it was because they foresaw that by the year 1978 we would be facing a sugar shortage. When the scheme was announced, it was announced mainly with the object, as the hon. the Minister of Lands Las said, to produce sugar there. Thereafter we had this upheaval in the sugar industry, and then we felt that we should ascertain what crops should be planted there after the completion of the scheme. It is also mentioned in the White Paper dealing with the Pongola Poort scheme that it is a scheme which was planned, at that stage, to be completed by 1978; only then would the scheme be completed, i.e. in 16 years’ time. In 1962 I decided that an experimental farm should be established there so that we could conduct experiments, and so that when settlers are put there we would be in a position to give them practical guidance. In the meantime, in view of the sugar position, and also for other reasons, and also with a view to the increased tempo of development of the Orange River scheme, we decided that we could very easily spread the development of this scheme over a period of 20 years instead of 16 years. That is what the hon. the Minister of Lands meant when he spoke about “retarding the process of development But I quite agree with him in regard to the possibilities of developing this settlement into a sugar-producing settlement. At the moment there is a team of soil-testers of my Department who are analysing the soil intensively over the whole area—and it is approximately 65,000 morgen in extent—so that we may know precisely what the different types of soil are and how the various products can be adapted to it. I hope that answers the hon. member’s question.

In conclusion, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I even want to thank those hon. members who do not deserve thanks for their negative contributions, but actually I want to thank everybody who contributed for their positive contributions. They have proved that the representatives of our people in this House are all anxious to join forces and to put their heads together in respect of this most important and most valuable natural resource we have, namely water, and to assist in developing our water resources in the best interests of the people and the future of the Republic.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E.—“Water Affairs”, R20,297,000, put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Vote No. 30, Loan Vote Q (Bantu Education) and the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account.

On Revenue Vote No. 30.—“Bantu Education (Ministry and Special Schools)”, R229,000,

I now put Vote No. 30, and I request hon. members to confine themselves to the Minister’s policy with regard to special schools. Immediately thereafter I shall put the Estimates of Expenditure on Bantu Education and also Loan Vote Q. I shall first put Loan Vote Q and thereafter the Estimates of Expenditure on Bantu Education when the general policy of the Minister may be discussed.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote Q.—“Bantu Education”, R1,188.000, and “Bantu Education”, R23,663,000,

May I have the half-hour?

Are you speaking to Loan Vote Q?

Not only Loan Vote Q; I am speaking on Loan Vote Q and the Estimates of Expenditure on Bantu Education. That is what was arranged.

I suggest that the hon. the Minister’s policy be discussed under the Estimates of Expenditure on Bantu Education.

I wish to deal with both together. We were told that Loan Vote Q and the Bantu Education Account will be put together.

Yes, I am prepared to allow the hon. member to do so.

Sir, quite recently I had the opportunity and the privilege of congratulating the Department of Education, Arts and Science on the production of their Annual Report for the calendar year 1962. They produced that report some weeks ago in time for the discussion on the Vote. That has now become the traditional policy in the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Coming now to the Department of Bantu Education we have received another report, the annual report of the Department for the year 1961. This is the first report and we received it a few days ago. I realize that there has been some difficulty in the Department in finding a routine for presenting these annual reports, but I think if the report is going to be late, as it is now—not the 1962 Report but the 1961 Report—I would suggest that it should be prepared by the beginning of the Session so that we could have an opportunity of perusing the report and of discussing it. However, I have tried to peruse it. I wish to make only one or two cursory remarks about this report. This is the first report; the others were educational publications that were presented earlier. I wish to refer to the introductory remarks in Chapter I on the first page—

This poorer section of the community made contributions for their own education, not indirectly through taxation but directly. The White section of the community are not asked to do that. Then the report goes on to say that there has been criticism of this system—

I should like to say to the Minister and to the Committee that the criticism you will hear today will be political and pedagogical. It will be both; we will cover the whole field as well as we can. Sir, the other report is a report by the Commission of Inquiry into the language medium through which children in the Transkei should be taught and to what extent they should use Xhosa, their home language, as their medium of instruction. I am not satisfied with the manner in which this report has been published. There were four Africans on the commission and two of our inspectors of education as assessors. They met for the first time at the end of July last year and reported expeditiously in October last year, but the report did not appear in our boxes until the 8th of this month, seven months later. Sir, I realize that there are difficulties of translation in South Africa, and now that English has become a translation language, as we are told by the Department of Education …

In ths case it was a translation into Afrikaans, otherwise it might have been ready sooner.

I realize that there may have been some difficulties accounting for some delay, but surely a delay of seven months is inexcusable. What I object to most of all is that while we were waiting for this report and looking forward to it, the hon. the Minister was using the contents of the report in his speeches. He was telling the country how the commission had reported while members of this House were not in possession of the report itself. I have now had an opportunity to read the report, although we received it only about a week ago, and having read it through I realized it was only necessary to read one of the paragraphs on the back page, on page 32. After that it was not necessary to read further. Witnesses were asked when the second language, the White man’s language should be introduced, and they gave an unequivocal answer. Question 16 of the questionnaire was: “If the child’s medium of instruction is to be changed from the mother tongue what stage is in your opinion the most suitable for effecting this change?” 83.6 per cent of the replies received said that it should start at Std. Ill or earlier. For the rest I should like to discuss the report in detail. I may have an opportunity of saying a word about the report later. Sir, this year in the discussion on Bantu education, we usher in a new era in Bantu education in South Africa. To-day we have one Minister of Bantu Education; next year we shall have at least two. We shall have a Minister of Bantu Education for the Republic, excluding the Transkei, and we shall have another Minister of Bantu Education in the Transkei. During the discussion on the Transkei Bill we tried to ascertain to what extent education would be handed over; what would be the financial implications and so on; where would the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education end. But naturally we were out of order because the substance of the Transkei Bill provided for the handing over of Bantu education to the new Cabinet of the Transkei; it handed over the functions, the responsibilities, of Finance, Justice, Education and so on to the Transkeian Government. That being the case it means that in the Transkei we may have a different philosophy and method in education; we may have the Transkei applying methods which are not approved by our Minister. We shall have two systems of education for the Transkei children. The Minister has his philosophy of a Bantu education; it has been adumbrated in this House from time to time; we know what it is: You should be educated on your own lines, not on the lines of the White man. I think a fair picture of the Minister’s policy is obtained from some of the advertisements which have been placed in newspapers overseas. The Government have been explaining to the world what our policy is in Bantu education. I am quoting now from an advertisement which appeared in the London Sunday Times.

That comes from the Minister of Information.

No, these advertisements are placed on behalf of this Department. They set out the policy of this Department. These are just one or two short extracts. Speaking of the change that has taken place in Bantu education they say—

Can anyone explain to me what is the difference between “Westernizing individuals” and “civilizing Bantu people”? Surely Westernizing is civilizing or at least we hope so, unless they wish to go to the communist creed for their inspiration. Then we come to another extract from this statement setting out the Department’s philosophy of education—

Well, when we come to discuss whether it is inferior, I think we can apply a very good test, a financial test. We do not say in this statement that the cost per Bantu child per annum is R13 and that the cost of a White child in a Tansvaal school is R90 per annum, seven times as much; and that the cost of a White child in a Transvaal high school is R141, eleven times as much. I do not know whether Bantu education is inferior in quality; it is certainly very much inferior from the point of view of the money that is being spent on it. Let me quote just one more. In this statement we see discussed the university education of the Bantu, the New Deal that the Bantu have received, and it says this—

What a whopper that is! We know that they are not going to develop soon to university status. We know that Fort Hare, drawing on all non-Whites in the country, after 40 years had not developed to that stage, but was on the verge of becoming a university when this Government destroyed the Fort Hare of those days and created a Bantu tribal college. We have three of these tribal colleges to-day, and anyone who says that they will soon become universities is saying something which we in South Africa know is not true. But how does the hon. the Minister, and the Government, in stating their policy hope to deceive people overseas with the story? The man who reads the London Sunday Times or the other papers in which they have advertised, can never be deceived by this stuff. As a matter of fact, the London Times while placing the advertisement has written articles criticizing the policy. The Government has spent over R10,900 in putting this across to the London Sunday Times over the period referred to in my question. That is only 20 per cent of what they spent in advertising our system of education overseas, and how the Government is governing. They have spent over R50,000 on that. Do they think this deceives anybody?

Are you trying to neutralize those advertisements?

I think it is childish; it does not deceive the people there and it does not do our country any good. Just imagine spending money advertising in Punch how well our Government is doing! The readers of Punch ask, “ Is it a contribution or an advertisement?” They are amused by it; they are not deceived by it.

What are you doing?

I am trying to tell the Minister what I think of this policy. I think it is a very poor one.

You are trying to run the country down.

If the hon. member wants to ask a question I am quite prepared to answer it. I have the privilege of the half-hour. My next point is this: We are handing over the education of the Bantu child to the Transkei, and I want to ask a simple question now: Have we made any preparation for that; how have we prepared the way for the transfer? We are in fact making the same mistake as the Belgians did in the Congo and as Britain made in some of her Colonies in handing over without proper preparation. Sir, for some years I have placed a question on the Order Paper asking the hon. the Minister what progress was being made in preparing Bantu education for the Bantu, because I think we are all agreed in this House that Bantu education should be education of the Bantu, by the Bantu, for the Bantu. I have asked for many years what the education should be and what preparation has been made for handing over, and this is what I find: Of the 143 senior posts, professional and administrative, in the Bantu Education Department not one is held by the Bantu. It is no good telling me they are not capable of holding these posts because a graduate from Fort Hare, from our own college, is an inspector of schools in Rhodesia. Mr. Senden is an inspector of schools there. Another graduate from Fort Hare is a lecturer at the Rhodesian University. There are men who have the ability, and I think we are all agreed that under this Government’s system we are going to hand over this education. But nothing is being done. You see, we have stated a philosophy of education and we are not carrying out our system. All we have done has been to sneer, as we did in this advertisement, at the educated Bantu. We talk about “pseudo Europeans”, “quasi Europeans”, “Westernizing individuals”, “European orientated”. I want to know how you become orientated any other way if you are going to be civilized. I want to quote the view of an African on education, in contrast to the philosophy of the hon. the Minister and this Government. I am quoting from the days when there was no anti-Communist Act; there was no talk of agitators; there was no talk of “liberaliste”. I am talking of 1937, and I am quoting from the proceedings of the Parliament that was given to the Bantu by General Hertzog, by the whole House, by the United Party and the Nationalist Party, in the 1936 Act. I quote from a speech made in 1937 by Councillor Thema before the Native Representative Council. Nobody would ever say that the late Councillor Thema was a communist or an agitator. I want to give you his views on education—

Then he said this—

Sir, I think of the years that the locusts have eaten. If we had Africans to-day who spoke like that, we would say, “we can work together.” But we missed an opportunity, and when finally General Smuts found that the members of this Natives’ Representative Council were unhappy, especially on the question of education, he said, “we must try another method, another plan”. I feel that even to-day we can still save the situation. We have not helped the people of the Transkei to establish their own system.

The next point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is this. Now that the Transkei has its own self-government what is the position of Fort Hare? Are we going to say to the Transkei, “You will have control of primary education and secondary education, your children will matriculate, and they will then go to a university college but not under your control.” It seems perfectly obvious to me that if we contend that university education must remain under our Minister, we will introduce a bone of contention right at the beginning. I would go much further as far as university education is concerned and say that university education should not be defrayed from the Bantu Education Account. It was intended originally for primary and secondary education, but the Bantu Education Account was not intended for university education.

Did you not listen to the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance where he said that special financial arrangements were being made for university education for the Bantu?

We know that that is being done; we know that the R13,000.000 has been increased this year and we are very glad to see it, but is Bantu education to be divorced now from primary and secondary education? Is it to be taken over?

It is divorced now. The R13.000.000 is still being paid.

Under which Minister will it be administered.

It falls under the same Minister but it is an additional amount paid to the Bantu Education Account especially for university education.

Will all university education be covered now apart from primary and secondary education?

Yes.

I am very glad to hear that. As the Minister knows, that was the policy which we put forward when these Bantu university colleges were established. I am very glad that has been conceded. At last we have made some progress. But I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is going to be the position with the Fort Hare University College. We were told when the Fort Hare University College was established that it would be their own college, that they would make greater progress, and that there would be greater satisfaction than in the past. But that has not been the case. To my amazement I saw the other day that a lecturer at Fort Hare University College had been charged under the Sabotage Act; it was most disturbing. We did not have these incidents before. It seems to bear out what the Leader of the Opposition has told the House, that we must have a change of policy. I think it is essential in South Africa that we should consider that very seriously.

It must have been one we inherited from the old regime.

I come back now to the matter which I raised at the beginning, the Commission of Inquiry. I am quoting now from one or two of the findings of this very important Commission of Inquiry which, I think, made some frank recommendations. The recommendations which the hon. the Minister used prematurely in his speeches are here, but there are many others as well, and I want to quote one or two. How are they to decide on a White man’s language as the official language they are going to use? Up to the present we have said that they will commence their education in Xhosa and then will have both White languages. My hon. friends on the other side have always argued against dual-medium education. They have told us that dual-medium education is not a satisfactory system. Let us see what the commission says. I am quoting now from the second column on page six—

That is the recommendation. This is what the commission says—

There is the idea that the parents are going to decide. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this simple question: If the plan was to hand over education to the Transkei he must have known in 1959 and subsequent years what the policy of the Government was. If they are going to hand over education I take it that the policy in Transkei education is to be determined by the new Minister in the Transkei. —or will the hon. the Minister decide his policy for him?

He will decide it.

Well, if that is so why did’ the Minister have a commission to investigate what the Xhosas are going to do? Surely they are the people to appoint a commission now?

It was appointed at their request.

My point is this Sir: Surely the hon. the Minister must have known what the policy of his Government was, that they were going to hand over the Transkei? And if they were going to hand over the Transkei then any commission appointed would be reporting to our Minister and not to the Minister of Bantu Education in the Transkei. I think it is very unfortunate that the Government have-done that. I think it was a mistake in policy.

My final point, Sir, is this: Xhosa education in the Transkei, I take it, will come under the Minister of Education in the Transkei. Who will be responsible for Xhosa education outside the Transkei? Will our Minister be responsible or the Minister in the Transkei? If our Minister is to be responsible are we going to have two systems of Xhosa Education; one for the Transkei and one here; in what is called the “blanke gebied?” As we know there are going to be more non-Whites in this White area than Whites. Who is going to decide what the policy is to be for Bantu education for the Xhosa people outside the Transkei? I am anxious to know that. I think my hon. friend, the member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) will see the difficulty here. It is rather like saying to a child on the platteland: “You are to have a different system of education in regard to language and medium from the child in the city”. If he is Afrikaans-speaking in the platteland what education is he going to have in the city? It must be uniform. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s views are on that-[Time limit.]

I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and I consider it a great pity that the hon. member spoke so derogatively about the attempts made by the Government in regard to Bantu education, and in that way also besmirched the name of our country. The hon. member complained because this support was not made available timeously. Well, I am sure I received the report at the same time that the hon. member did, and I have had a reasonable opportunity to study it and to draw my conclusions from it. Then the hon. member, inter alia, complained that the hon. the Minister had made use of data contained in that report before the report was tabled. For the rest, the hon. member said that to be “westernized is civilized”. That is just where we differ from the Opposition. The Opposition wants to make the Bantu a Black westerner. He must be an inferior imitator and must be compelled to follow in the footsteps of the White westerner. I wonder what the educated Japanese will say about this speech of the hon. member’s, in which he says that it is only the person who is westernized who it civilized. I do not believe that the Japanese or the Chinese, with their ancient civilizations, will agree with the hon. member.

In addition, the hon. member spoke somewhat derogatively of the Bantu university colleges. If I understood him correctly, he spoke, inter alia, of “tribal colleges The hon. member ought to know that those university colleges are examined by the University of South Africa, and also that the standard achieved there is a very high one. If he does not want to believe it, I can prove it to him. At Fort Hare the percentage of passes in the first year in 1962 was 64 per cent; in the second year it was 70.8 per cent, and in the third year 52.3 per cent. That compares very well with the examination results at other universities. In the northern universities the percentage of passes in the first year was 67 per cent, in the second year 73 per cent, and in the third year 55.5 per cent. That also compares very well with the White universities. In the case of the university college in Zululand the percentage of passes in the fisrt year was 65.6 per cent, and in the second year 91 per cent. There were 29 first-year students, of whom 19 passed; in the second year 12 wrote and 11 passed; in the third year six wrote and four passed, i.e., 66.6 per cent. These results repudiate that statement and the derogatory remarks of the hon. member for Kensington.

I just want to comment on one other thing that was said by the hon. member, and that is in regard to the control of Bantu education outside the Transkei. As an ex-educationist and an ex-inspector the hon. member ought to know that the Transkei cannot prescribe for the different schools in the Republic. The hon. member surely knows that in the case of the Transvaal we have for many years had students from Rhodesia, and still have them. We have, e.g. students from Swaziland there in the White schools and they simply have to follow the curriculum of the Transvaal schools. Surely the hon. member ought to know that. They cannot demand that the Rhodesian curriculum should be applied for them in the Transvaal schools, or the curriculum of Swaziland’s White schools. That is surely obvious.

The commission of inquiry investigating the suitable language medium for the education of Bantu children in the Transkei unequivocally expressed itself as being in favour of the mother tongue as the medium of education. Despite the fact that there was a certain negative reference to this report, I want to say that I regard it as a thorough investigation, and that this report is particularly informative. It means that the commission desires—and I emphasize this—that the Bantu children in the Transkei should not receive their education through the medium of Afrikaans or English, but through the medium of their own language. They add that the lessons in Afrikaans and English should always be of a high standard, and that these two languages should receive particular attention. Indeed, that runs like a golden thread throughout the report of this commission.

I find two particular characteristics in regard to this report. In the first place the commission which issued this report consisted of expert educationists, and secondly, it consisted of Bantu. Therefore the findings of this commission are not the findings of laymen, but of experts in the sphere of education, people who are perhaps more expert than the hon. member for Kensington and I or others who may still participate in this debate. It is not the findings of a particular racial group which wants to enforce its desires on another group, or wants to indoctrinate another group with its views. These Bantu educationists worked on their own and decided on these matters, and they framed a thoroughly considered report. Under normal circumstances this report would not have told us anything new, because the idea of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction is a very old one. It is a standpoint supported by many educationists throughout the world. In that respect, Sir, it is only logical that those people came to this conclusion. What I find important is that in the circumstances this recommendation in fact has news value. It is of particular interest because during the course of the years certain persons and certain bodies stated that the Bantu should not receive his education through the medium of his mother tongue, but through the medium of English. But what is even worse, Sir, is that some people maintained that having a Bantu language as the medium of education was really a measure of oppression. Others again said that the Bantu languages were not suited to the media of education. The Bantu languages, in other words, were regarded as being inferior, and the people who were to receive education through the media of those languages would be receiving inferior instruction and education and would really be doomed to perpetual inferiority. [Time limit.]

I move—