When interrupted by the adjournment last night, I, as the last speaker of the official Opposition, had been summing up the party’s attitude with regard to this Bill, and I pointed out that whilst we supported the Bill, whilst we were giving the Minister the authority he said was necessary to deal with what he classed as a minority of unscrupulous property-owners and rack-renters, we also felt that it was necessary and in the best interests of all concerned, tenants as well as owners, and the country itself, that the Bill should be dealt with by a select committee after the second reading. It appears to us that by the very fact that Parliament will adopt the Bill with the support of both sides of the House, will give warning to the minority referred to by the hon. the Minister, people who are attempting to cash in on the fact that there is a housing shortage, that Parliament is in earnest with this Bill, must put a brake on their actions. We furthermore felt that it would also afford the necessary time, which can be quite a limited time because a select committee of this nature should be able to report quickly, to examine the Bill much more carefully than it has been possible to do in the short time at our disposal, and also to examine it more carefully in the light of the expert evidence that it would be possible to obtain, again reflecting both sides of the argument with regard to rent control, to make sure that the legislation which we finally adopt will not in fact be creating still further difficulties and aggravate the position which to-day is unsatisfactory and which we are trying to clear up.

We believe that there are many important national institutions indispensable to the adequate provision of this type of housing throughout the country, because one has to accept that this type of housing is not the responsibility of the Government to provide—it has to be done by private enterprise, whether through institutions or through individuals themselves. We believe that there are many such important national institutions and people who are indispensable to the adequate provision of housing, including also those who speak with authority for both the average type (I am not talking now about the type the hon. Minister referred to, the rack-renters) of both tenants and landlords, who should have an opportunity of placing their views, their evidence before such a committee for the guidance of Parliament and for the ultimate assistance of the hon. Minister and his staff. We believe that such a course, if the hon. Minister were prepared to accept it, would place no bigger burden on him or his Department; he will get the powers that he requires, he will serve his notice on the people who are breaking the rules, and he will have the value of these widely spread and experienced interests to assist him in this whole issue.

The hon. Minister in introducing this Bill mentioned that it was the policy of the Government, the over-all policy, to abolish rent control as it became practical to do so. He, of course, qualified that statement by saying that there were certain safeguards which would have to be retained, but the general policy would be the gradual lifting of control in certain areas as the housing conditions in such areas warranted that lifting of control, whilst at the same time retaining powers to deal with the rack-renting type. That may well be so, but it would also be folly not to also realize that the Bill as it is before us to-day also entrenches and extends control in certain important directions—at any rate if it does not do so immediately, it provides the necessary authority for that extension as and when the Minister decides that it is necessary to do so. The Bill may well beneficially affect the housing conditions of many families, but at the same time it also affects many other interests whose security and activities and above all whose goodwill are so closely linked with the maintenance of a healthy climate in the housing position of the country that we cannot afford to do anything to jeopardize their goodwill or their stability. The hon. Minister has given an assurance that except for the safeguards to deal with the unscrupulous type of landlord, properties built after the 1949 guarantee of non-interference will remain free from rent control. Let us face realities, Sir. The Bill does provide the necessary machinery to apply control to even that type of property where in the opinion of the Minister such control becomes necessary, and it is idle not to face that reality. The Bill to that extent does undermine the guarantee which was entrenched in 1949, and then goes on to reentrench it in 1964. Now what organization whether they deal with their own money or as in the case of the many important institutions dealing with the money of the public invested with them, what people of that nature can really accept that guarantee in the face of what this Bill is doing to an exactly similar guarantee granted in 1949? You cannot destroy the security given at one time and replace it somewhere else and still expect people to have the same confidence that at some later stage that same new guarantee that you are giving to-day may not for some reason or other be jeopardized. No matter how it is explained away, the provisions of the Bill must to some extent shake investor’s confidence. We feel that we can help to minimize any such destruction of confidence and help to replace it by the very fact that a select committee, after consultation with the interests concerned, could make certain recommendations based on the evidence which may warrant such a clause being put in the Bill. At least they have been heard and there is that human satisfaction in that they have been consulted. They will accept that Parliament itself has taken some cognizance of what they put forward. That is another reason why we urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the appointment of a select committee.

The Minister also claimed that the Bill improves the position of property owners by fixing the rate of return on the land and the building and depreciation at 6 per cent, 8 per cent and 2 per cent calculated on the value of the property, and doing away with the latitude previously allowed the Rent Boards to allow less than the maximum. To that extent I think the Minister is quite justified in claiming that it improves the position, but I want to ask the Minister to appreciate also that this is another point which could well be hammered out in a select committee. The value of his assurance however is heavily undermined by the system which is adopted by Rent Boards in fixing the values of property. There are several recognized standard systems for calculating the value of property, but none of them are accepted by the board, which has arbitrary rules of its own which may vary a little in each particular area. The experience of people who have knowledge of these matters is that the board’s valuations are often fixed by officials who, with the best intentions in the world, are not qualified and experienced in dealing with property valuations, and that the basis of their valuations vary widely even in the same areas and they leave out of consideration certain vital factors. I take as an example the whole of the Cape Province, where property valuations are the responsibility of the provincial authorities and not the municipalities. The valuations are fixed by provincial valuators selected from a panel of experienced sworn valuators prepared by the province. In valuing a property they take into account basic facts, and the market value has to-day become one of the basic factors as also the position of the property, its locality and its condition. These are all factors which either appreciate or depreciate the value of a property valuation. The next stage is that the provincial authorities set up a valuation court presided over and staffed by people experienced in that particular type of property valuation. Both the owner and anyone else who has a legal right to object can appear and place their views before that court, which finally gives its decision after hearing evidence. That decision then is final and binding on the property owner. He pays his rates and taxes on it and his water assessment is charged on it, and all the many other things linked with property valuation, like insurance rates, etc., are based on that valuation. It is accepted throughout the province that that is a basic valuation for all legal purposes for the property. It has to-day become almost the assessed market value of the property. But when that valuation is placed before a local Rent Board they dismiss it; it is merely the municipal valuation which the board need not accept, and the Act provides that they need not accept it. They can fix an arbitrary value of their own, which in many cases is well below that provincial valuation. That is one of the features that is bringing the system of rent control into a certain amount of disfavour. It is making it more difficult for these boards and it is certainly not helping to smooth the way of rent control. I want to ask the Minister whether that is not a matter which could well be hammered out in a select committee and some acceptable basis found for a Rent Board valuation which will remove these difficulties. Is it not worth while trying? To me it seems so. It will remove a lot of the difficulties of the Minister and his officials and it will meet the criticism that inexperienced and unqualified people can, and at present do, fix the valuation of properties for rent control purposes. That is another reason in support of our appeal that a select committee should be appointed.

Then under the administration of the Rents Act there is another factor which bears on valuations. We have had at least two previous Ministers dealing with rent control in this Parliament who have given the country the assurance that the inspectors of the Department will not go round touting for objections. Prompting contented tenants who have been in occupation for many years to make appeals to get their rents reduced. I would like to ask the Minister whether that assurance still holds good, because it is a general complaint that in times of slackness the practice is followed where rent inspectors themselves go round looking for work, and in doing so they are apt to stir up a certain amount of resentment. I would like the Minister in his reply to give us an assurance that the undertaking his predecessors gave the country is still in force.

There is one other feature which also has a distinct link with valuations, and I think the Minister understands this problem. It so happens that I was a member of a deputation which discussed certain features of rent control with the Minister last year and we found him very understanding. True the housing situation has changed rapidly since then, but there is this feature which still needs attention. The country cannot do without the housing which is provided by the older type of buildings which fall under the pre-1949 rent control. They form the basic housing of a particular section of the population and the country must have it. Those houses are getting a bit old now and their rate of depreciation is substantially higher than for the newer properties, like the Housing Board properties mentioned by the Minister, the owners of which may be satisfied with 2 per cent depreciation. It costs a lot more to keep these old houses in good condition. The landlord of this older property is not getting the same real value from his 8 per cent and 6 per cent and 2 per cent depreciation because he has to spend a lot more to keep the property in good condition, and I am talking now about the decent landlord who does keep it in order. I urge the Minister to consider whether or not it is possible to examine and to see whether a property of a certain age limit could not be treated on a different percentage basis, particularly in regard to depreciation and maintenance, than the newer properties. We have seen what is happening in other countries. France is a particular example and we see it in this country, too. You can go through some of the bigger and the smaller towns and see what were at one time very fine properties, which were a credit to the neighbourhood. Properties which fall under the pre-1949 control, and due to the fact that the landlord does not get a decent financial return on his capital he is more or less compelled to allow the property to deteriorate and fall into disrepair. That is what happens as the result of an inadequate return on the capital invested. In view of the indispensability of that type of property in order to house the community, I would like to ask the Minister whether that is not also a feature which could well be considered by a select committee in order to find a solution, even although it is not an easy problem to solve. That is another reason why a select committee is justified.

There is one last item, and that is that in dealing with this matter I mentioned yesterday that there has been a sudden change in the housing position. (Time limit.)

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for rising so late in this debate, but due to circumstances over which I have no control I was not here yesterday. I want to thank the Minister for his courtesy in agreeing with the Whips to allow me to speak to-day just a few minutes after it had been agreed that my hon. friend who has just sat down would be the last speaker. I also apologize to him for contradicting him when he said he was the last speaker, but I will only detain the House a few minutes.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), in his excellent and lucid speech yesterday, described in graphic terms the position that exists in his area and in mine, in Sea Point and in Green Point. There is little that I can add to it without repetition and I do not propose to do that. I should therefore just like to endorse the views he expressed in connection with our two constituencies and say why I am supporting this Bill. I want to say this, however, that on the whole the landlords and owners of rented property are decent, honest people who are merely seeking an investment which gives them a reasonable return on their capital, with a chance of a capital appreciation over a period of years to make up for the depreciation in currency due to inflation. In this era of the erosion of currency and its purchasing power, which as the Minister of Finance has told us is from 2 per cent to 3 per cent per annum, the wise investor invests his money so as to allow of the capital retaining its purchasing power over a long period. We know that when the investor invests in fixed interest-bearing stocks or bonds that when he gets paid back his money in two or three decades the money is only worth half of what it was when he invested it. The best way the investor can insure against that is by putting his capital into real estate, which will rise in terms of a falling currency, and that of course is a legitimate and completely honest form of investment. At the same time, as my hon. friend has pointed out, he is rendering a service to the community as a whole by providing accommodation for those who have not the capital to provide their own homes. Without such investors the Government will have to supply housing for the lower income groups, or otherwise they would not be housed.

Sir, I have studied this Bill and I am convinced it is not aimed at this class of investor. There are, however, a minority of greedy people who want to exploit their tenants by using the shortage of housing to force the latter to pay rents they cannot really afford and which are out of all proportion to the capital invested, as well as out of proportion to the tenants’ income or else be thrown out into the street without a roof over their heads. For such landlords I have no sympathy whatever, but only contempt. But I am sure the Minister will ensure that the proper balance is maintained so that the honest investor is not pushed out of this field of investment, which would be against the interests of the country, and at the same time see to it that the tenant is not exploited. I am sure that the Minister does not intend to use his powers under this Bill to interfere with the rentals of the luxury flats, which are largely occupied by wealthy people for prestige and status purposes. Such tenants need no protection and can look after themselves. To give the reverse of the coin, however, there have been cases in the past under the old 1950 Rent Act where the protection afforded in good faith to the tenants was used as an instrument to make the position of the landlord almost impossible. I have not the time to develop that argument. This Bill, in my view, is an attempt to strike a fair relationship between landlords and their tenants who fall in the middle and lower income groups, and for those reasons I support this Bill.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) voiced a few points of criticism which vary a little from most of the points raised on that side of the House. The hon. member, inter alia, suggested that the municipal valuations should perhaps be taken as the basis. But now the basis or norm of municipal valuations differs from province to province. So, in other words, that cannot apply. The only basis one can take is the valuation of the property taken in conjunction with the area in which it is situated. I agree with the hon. member that there is always doubt about valuations and that they always cause some measure of confusion. But let me tell him that even where one makes use of two sworn valuers to value the same property in order to arrive at a reasonably correct valuation, cases have already come to my notice where they differed by as much as R900. I admit that there will always be differences of opinion with regard to valuations, and Section 5 of the existing Rents Act provides that Rent Boards, with the permission of the Minister, and in consultation with the Minister of Finance, can make use of sworn valuers. But this is not a matter which a select committee can solve, because empowering legislation for this already exists. I am prepared, however, to say that if actual cases are brought to my notice from which it appears that there are reasons for dissatisfaction, then in consultation with the Rent Boards and my Department I will take up the whole question of valuations with them again. But this is a matter which can be dealt with administratively and therefore it is not necessary for a select committee to decide on it.

The hon. member also referred to the undertaking given by a previous Minister that rent control would not again be instituted universally after 1949, but the hon. member ought to know that the same assurances were given in 1920 when the original Rents Act was introduced, but nevertheless, barely 20 years later, that date was extended. The assurance given by the Minister was in respect of the period which he could foresee. The Cabinet also had this assurance brought to their notice when it decided that we should continue with this legislation. It is not as if the Cabinet did not know about it, but we cannot bind ourselves to an assurance given for that period when we now know that we are dealing here with a specific problem. Moreover, we are not again applying rent control universally. Therefore we are still acting in the spirit of that assurance. This Bill is not intended to reinstate universal rent control. Nor is it a Bill which amends the Rents Act. It deals with the exploitation of defects in the Act to the benefit of people who hope to make money out of a state of emergency.

The hon. member further referred to the deputation which saw me last year, but he will remember that that deputation, which consisted of members on both sides of the House and representatives of the Property Owners’ Association, requested me to abolish rent control, and what was my reply? I said no, we were faced with a housing shortage in regard to certain categories of housing, and I gave the reasons, and the deputation was satisfied. The hon. member agrees with me that this is a correct projection of what happened. I mention it because it negatives the accusation of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) that we did not foresee what would happen. That is my reply to him. Well, I leave the matter there.

During the course of my speech I shall probably refer again to points raised by the hon. member. I think I am justified in saying that no appreciable criticism of the Bill came from the opposite side, because most of the arguments dealt with defects in the Rents Act and with what should still be done, and with housing matters which might as well have been discussed under a Housing Act or under my Vote, but in respect of these specific clauses there was no criticism.

Except the valuations.

Yes, but this Bill does not deal with valuations. It deals particularly with two matters, viz. abuses in respect of furniture, and increased rentals in respect of buildings which do not fall under the existing Rents Act. We are not dealing with valuations in this Bill.

That is the trouble with this Bill.

The question is whether hon. members are in agreement with the proposals I have submitted to them, or not, and if they agree we do not need a select committee to decide that we agree with one another. That is the point.

I therefore say that there was no appreciable criticism, and secondly I think I have minimized the criticism of hon. members by means of the amendments of which I myself gave notice. After this Bill was published we gave a reasonable measure of opportunity for people to react to it, and we were able to say that we would be conciliatory towards bona fideowners or tenants who sublet for a period of, say, not longer than four months, and also in respect of the 90-day provision. This is not the 90-day provision of the hon. the Minister of Justice, but the other 90-day provision, and I said that we would grant time for matters to be finalized. Thirdly, there is the concession that after rents have been frozen no decrease will be ordered by the Rents Board unless the Minister approves of it. Now hon. members have raised objection to that and asked how the Minister will know. But in Section 5 of the existing Rents Act it is provided that the Minister has the power to employ the services of valuators to determine whether the Rents Board acted correctly. So there is already provision in the law. There is the further concession that when an area is proclaimed in terms of the new provisions and new buildings are erected, a second proclamation will have to follow before a rents determination can be made. In that way I have dealt with the most serious objections, and what remains over might just as well be discussed here over the floor of the House in the Committee Stage.

But I want to make a second point, and I must react to the wrong impression that was created here. There is no general housing shortage in the country. I do not want to try to convince hon. members at length, but just look every evening at the advertisements in the newspaper and you will see how many houses are offered for sale and to let. There is a shortage of a specific category of houses in the country, viz. houses to let for the lower and middle income groups, but there is no general housing shortage. Do not let us become excited and create that impression in regard to our country. It is not correct, and I must object to this impression being created. One person even told the Minister of Labour a story that this Bill will frighten away immigrants. Just imagine, if one reduces rents one frightens away immigrants! But what will frighten away immigrants is the story that we have a general housing shortage in the country, and that is not true. The State has a duty to the lower and middle income groups in respect of housing. But the State’s duty is not only to provide housing; it also has a duty to protect those people against exploitation, and that is why these measures are being taken.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Jeppes. He made quite a few statements here. The first is that “the Government is always passing legislation to deal with problems and then thinks they have dealt with them”. Well, that is just a bald statement which is quite unfounded and it is not true. The hon. member must forgive me for saying that I did not expect that of him, because although one might accuse this Government of many things if one wanted to, there is one thing it cannot be accused of, and that is where it has really achieved something splendid—and here I pay tribute to my predecessors for it—namely the housing we have provided in South Africa. Any reasonable, normal person will admit that. But the hon. member went further and said that the housing programme should have been planned earlier, and then we would not have landed in this position. Does the hon. member know that right throughout Europe where housing programmes are being planned for millions and millions rent control exists, because right throughout it is being stated today in all civilized countries that a housing shortage is one of the clearest signs that a country is developing. No, one must have tens of thousands of vacant houses to show that the country is developing! That is now the well-known economist of the United Party who says that. The hon. member should not become nonsensical in his criticism.

You should not become childish.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was not here yesterday. He was probably busy with party propaganda, but I want to tell him that I did not interrupt anybody here in an undignified manner. I ask him to behave himself in the same way. If he cannot do so, I can understand it.

In the first place I want to put this question to the hon. member for Jeppes, and I hope he will listen to me now: Can the hon. member deny that this Government has made sufficient funds available every year for housing? Ever since this party came into power sufficient funds were made available every year which could be used by local authorities for housing. The hon. member cannot deny it; those are the facts of the matter.

I will reply if you sit down. You ask me a question, but do not give me an opportunity to reply.

I did not know I was dealing with unintelligent creatures. Look at the statistics and you will find that in no single year was there a demand for funds which this Government could not meet.

But this is the first year that you have brought in 30,000 immigrants.

Secondly, since I took over this portfolio—I am talking now only of the time of which I have personal knowledge—this Department of Housing was in personal contact—not by letter, but personally—with over 300 local authorities to encourage them to provide housing where there was a need for it, also for Whites. But the hon. member says we did not plan. For the first time to-day we are busy in South Africa building up statistics in regard to the need for housing for Whites by means of this liaison we have with the local authorities. In the third place the Department was reorganized so that it now has seven regional offices in order to be able to deal more promptly with applications and with individual applications for loans in terms of the 90 per cent loan scheme. But the hon. member does not know that, and that is why he makes this statement here.

In the fourth place the Department during the last few years itself began to plan and to undertake housing schemes just because it did not want to leave this to the local authorities alone. That is why to-day, in the former slum area of Sophiatown, there is an ever-expanding housing scheme ” Triomf’ for the lower and middle income groups, while the Johannesburg City Council has not even made a single house available for Whites. And that is the hon. member’s own city council—a city council nominated by the United Party. Sir, I am not even talking about Crown Gardens, Johannesburg, and other schemes which have been undertaken by the National Housing Commission. I am talking of schemes with which we are busy now, as at Triomf, and the same applies to Cape Town. In Cape Town a deputation of the City Council interviewed me more than a year ago in connection with other matters. I told them: “There is going to be a housing shortage for Whites here and you should do something about it”, but until to-day they have done nothing. What has in fact happened in Cape Town is that we have now practically completed our planning to build a large housing scheme for Whites in the lower and middle income groups at Bosmansdam ourselves.

Sub-economic?

It is not sub-economic housing. The hon. member should not think sub-economically. Under this Government we have planned to such an extent that last year already the National Housing Commission for the first time decided, after having completed experiments which took quite an appreciable time, in future to grant loans to local authorities and to individuals for wooden houses. But that the hon. member does not know; this is the first time he hears about it. It makes no impression on him, because he wants to continue his old scandal-mongering to the effect that we do not plan.

Then why is there a shortage of housing?

I shall read to the hon. member in a moment what an expert says in that regard. I just want to tell the hon. member this further: I have in my possession here two circulars which were issued to all local authorities, the first on 1 August 1962 and the second on 20 February 1963 in which we thank municipalities which co-operated with us but make an appeal to other city councils immediately to devote special attention to the provision of houses for Whites. As far back as 1962, before we had this inflow of immigrants, steps were taken to urge municipalities to take action by means of circularizing them, apart from personal efforts. But my greatest problem in this country is not with the Nationalist city councils; it is with the city councils whose thinking is un-South African. Our greatest problem in this country is with the United Party-controlled city councils which like to have slums and housing shortages.

Mention them.

I mentioned two of them a moment ago.

Johannesburg is one of them.

A little while ago I had to appoint a Departmental Committee specially to induce the Johannesburg City Council to take action. They have now been compelled to take action, and they will be compelled to take even more intensive action.

I come now to the second accusation which was made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). He said that we should have consulted impartial bodies in regard to this measure. We did that. Before this Bill was introduced the Secretary for Housing, on instructions from me, had consultations with the heads of two important financial institutions in this country. I am not going to mention their names across the floor of the House. But he had consultations with the managers of two of our most important financial institutions which own many properties, and I will read to hon. members what they said. The one said—

That is at the same time also a reply to the hon. member—

That is the opinion of an eminent head of a financial institution. He was asked to express his opinion on the question of profit, and in that regard he said that he considered that a profit of between 8 per cent and 10 per cent was quite sufficient. The opinion of the second one is as follows—

But they are satisfied with that. Therefore we did have consultations. We even consulted with and obtained the economic advice of experts in the Public Service. I want to read just one paragraph—

We therefore did have consultations. I do not say that hon. members must agree with this, but I am dealing with the accusation that we did not consult impartial persons. We did so, and these are the encouraging statements we got from them.

In the third place the great complaint was that we should refer this Bill to a select committee. It is all good and well for us to agree here now, and it is very wonderful for brothers to live amicably together—it is like the oil which drips from the beard of Aaron—but I suppose we will agree even more after having wasted six weeks in a select committee! I now tell hon. members that I am not prepared to refer this Bill to a select committee. This Bill is simple enough to be disposed of here. I am not going to create an opportunity for pressure groups in the country to set afoot an agitation and to try to push Parliament around. We must accept the responsibility for looking after our voters, and we are not going to take shelter behind the representations and the evidence of interested parties. We must act according to what we believe is in the interest of the country, and I think every reasonable person to-day expects the Government to prevent exploitation, and that is what we propose doing here. If a lengthy piece of legislation has to be reviewed, that is something else, but this Bill is not an amending measure. I may just say that I think this is at the same time also the reply to the hon. member for Germiston (District), who really made only one main point, namely that we should consult the interested parties. First he wanted us to consult the impartial people, but now according to him we must also consult the interested parties. But, Sir, who are the interested parties here? Here we have only two interested groups. On the one hand there are the tenants who are being exploited, and on the other side there are the people who exploit them. Why should we consult the exploiters? They get the opportunity of appearing before the Rent Board if an investigation is instituted into alleged irregularities on their part; then they can put their case to the Rent Board and the Rent Board can submit a proper report to the Minister, and when rent control is applied and the Rent Board takes action there will be an appeal to the Rent Control Board. In other words, those persons get the opportunity to state their case on its merits at the appropriate time. But why should we now ask these exploiters whether we may take action against them? What kind of Government would that be?

Mr. Speaker, a few other matters were raised here which deserve attention. Firstly, I want to take this opportunity to thank those hon. members who supported this Bill unconditionally. Amongst them I also count members like the hon. members for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) and Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), who supported this Bill on its merits and did not try to make political capital out of it. I think they did so because they know that their voters are suffering to-day, and I thank them for adopting that attitude. I also want to thank the hon. members on my side, and I must say I think we were all impressed last night by the way hon. members, on this side of the House particularly, who took part in the debate were au fait with the subject. I want to thank them all for their contributions.

Certain hon. members raised the question of valuations, and others raised the question of the 8 per cent profit. I think I have already partially dealt with that. The hon. member who raised the matter also informed me that he could not be here this afternoon. But then we come to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), who has now made his second speech in this House. He said, “The Department has failed”. That is now his contribution—the Department has failed. Then he asks: “Why has it failed? The Housing Commission cannot cope with the situation.” Then he continues to talk about “the impossible delays which are taking place”. He says that all that came from the Department is that at a certain stage we approved a scheme and then we came back and asked the City Council of Kimberley for cheaper land. And when the hon. member reached that stage he could not help laughing at himself.

That was when he said that he was “an hon. member”

What are the facts? Where are the great delays? The hon. member for Jeppes also laughed at me yesterday when I said that planning took time. The hon. member for Karoo then spoke about delays. But, Sir, what is required before one can start a housing scheme? In most cases one requires a master plan or a layout plan for that area. Often land has to be transferred; very often new services have to be provided, and that all takes time. It takes time not only in South Africa, but also in other countries. I made a point of discussing this matter with other authorities, and they ” told me that it takes just as much time. It takes anything from a year to two years before one can start moving. The hon. member for Karoo says that the Housing Commission is responsible for the delay, but that is not true, surely the Housing Commission is not the body which plans this scheme and approves it? That falls under the provinces. The hon. member was a member of the Provincial Executive Committee, and if he is such a shining light, why did he, as an M.E.C. not do anything to eliminate these delays? No, then he kept himself busy with politics in the Executive Committee instead of doing his work. But he was also a member of the City Council of Kimberley, and he still is. I now want to ask the hon. member: How many houses for Whites did the Kimberley City Council build while funds were available to them from the National Housing Commission? They did not build a single house for a White person.

Shame!

The housing schemes for Whites in Kimberley were established there by my Department. And then the hon. member complains in this House because we asked for cheaper land. Of course we asked for cheaper land. We did not want to allow the City Council of Kimberley to make money out of the housing of poor people. We said: Give us land which is suitable for the house which has to be built on it. Mr. Speaker, this is now the new shining light who has joined the ranks of the United Party. I think he has only clouded the issue, and the only advice I can give him is that he should make sure of his facts before speaking here in future. It is not a prerequisite for a new member to talk a lot of nonsense here in his second speech.

I think I have now dealt with all the points of criticism.

What about my questions?

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) asked: What about the houses which came under rent control before 1949 and in respect of which there was not a rent determination?

I asked you to explain Clause 3.

I explained Clause 3 in my introductory speech, but the hon. member was probably not listening then.

Not clearly.

I am replying to the hon. member’s one point. He asked what the position was in connection with those cases. My reply is that in future all cases will be investigated if a reasonable complaint is submitted to the Rent Board.

I wish to conclude by just saying this: I am grateful that the undertone of this whole debate was that this Parliament is united in its attempt to prevent the exploitation of poor people. I think we should rather create that impression in the minds of the public than to make attempts, as was done here, to hide the Bill behind a cloud of doubt. Let us rather create the impression that this Parliament is united on this point and that people who exploit poor people through the provision of furniture in an illegitimate way should be dealt with, and in the second place that this Parliament is united in its attempt to prevent exorbitant rentals being charged. We regard it as the duty of Parliament to protect that section of our population. If there are unreasonable tenants, there are other measures we can apply to protect the owner, but that is not the object of this Bill. But I think there is also another point in regard to which we ought to send a message of unity into the country. By means of this Bill we will not necessarily solve the housing shortage; nobody has ever alleged that. In fact, in my introductory speech I said that we must apply this measure as a short-term measure, but our duty is in the long run to ensure that every person in the lower and middle income groups should be supplied with a house as far as possible, and if our conventional methods of providing housing are not sufficient, then we must devote attention to the other methods now being increasingly applied in the world, namely prefabricated houses. The Government is engaged on that now. It has already taken a decision in respect of wooden houses. Houses may to-day be built of wood. But I think unless it should also emanate from this Parliament that we make an appeal to all city councils, whether they are dominated by Nationalists or by United Party supporters, to make use of the facilities made available to them by the State in order to combat our housing problem. Let us rather send out that message than to quibble about select committees and to try to cast suspicion on the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

At this third-reading stage it is customary for us to take into review the passage of the Bill through the House and to assist the hon. the Minister if we can in presenting the Bill in the Other Place. When we examined this Bill before it was presented to Parliament it was quite obvious to us that the Bill was really what I described as a corollary to the Bantu Education Act; that it was just something that followed on the Act; that it was what we often call a consequential measure, and therefore we were prepared to support the Bill. But to our amazement we found, commencing from the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) who delivered a most interesting sermon here all the educational experts on the other side, proceeded to attack us because we did not oppose the Bill and, if I may say so, many of them gave reasons—quite imaginary reasons—why we had not done so. They carried on for almost two days attacking us for not opposing the Bill. I can excuse them for that because it was quite clear to me that they did not understand the Bill. But there was no excuse for the hon. the Minister. In his reply to the second-reading debate he lashed himself into a fury and attacked us and me personally. For what reason? For supporting the Bill. Sir, it is very necessary for us now to consider how this Bill has come before Parliament. What is the historical background of this amending Bill to the Bantu Education Act? Hon. members may remember that in 1953 Bantu Education, or the education of Natives as we called it in those days, was transferred from the provincial governments to the Central Government, and we opposed that on two grounds. Firstly we opposed it on the ground of provincial autonomy, and the second ground was that if it were to be transferred to the Central Government then it should be transferred …

On a point of order, I should like to have your ruling, Sir, as to whether what the hon. member is now discussing has anything to do with the contents of the Bill.

The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I am not discussing the contents; I am discussing the historical back-ground. There we have another educationist who does not seem to have made any more progress than the others I have been discussing. Sir, we opposed the Bill on the second ground that education was being transferred to the Native Affairs Department which in those days was under the Prime Minister who was Minister of Native Affairs. I think I can express our view on that occasion by quoting a very short extract from a speech by one of our speakers who supported our opposition to the Bill. He said this—

Sir, it took six years for the Central Government to realize that we were speaking soundly and giving sound advice. After six years, in 1959, education was taken from Native Affairs and a Department of Education was established. Now, we have quite a great deal to say about Bantu Education and what happened in 1959 and what happened in 1953, but Standing Order 115 of this House forbids me discussing it. I may not cast any reflection on legislation passed in this House; I may not discuss a measure on the Statute Book, and these hon. gentlemen who have rehashed all the arguments of 1953 were not out of order; they had never been in order to get out of order.

Sir, what is the position in this Bill? The real substance of this Bill is contained in Clauses 25 and 26. We were not discussing in this Bill the transfer of special schools from the provinces as we were in 1953. What we were discussing, Sir, was this: The simple transfer of special schools from one Education Department of the Central Government to another. Special schools were never under the provinces; special schools have always been under the Central Government. Hon. members will remember that in Clause 25 provision is made for the amendment of the 1948 Act. I presume the hon. the Minister got the idea from the Coloured Education Act of last year. Under the Coloured Education Act we decided that special schools and vocational schools should fall under the new Coloured Education Department. And now we are doing the same thing with Bantu education. It is going into an education department. There is no principle involved at all.

Clause 26 makes provision for vocational education under the Education Act of 1955 to be transferred to the Bantu Education Department. And that is the whole substance of the Bill. There is nothing we can attack. The Bill is moulded on the 1948 Act. We are giving the powers to one Education Department that used to belong to another. We now have four Education Departments instead of one under the Central Government; we have one for Whites, one for Indians, another for Coloureds, another for Bantu, another one in the Transkei, and so we go on. Our policy is this, Sir, that education is education. There should be one authority. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is giving tongue. If I may say this, Sir: If hon. members wish to see good organization of an education department for Whites, for Coloureds, for Rheheboths (the Basters, as we call them) the Ovambo’s and various others, let them study the Odendaal report—everybody is reading the Odendaal Report—and see the system there. Education is education.

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) deemed it necessary to reply. But I can well understand why he had to reply. He had to reply in order to try to gloss over the fact that during my reply to the second-reading debate he stated here quite clearly that they were still opposed to a certain principle which they had opposed consistently in the past, although it is a principle that is contained in this Bill. He tried to suggest that there was really no new principle contained in this Bill. I want to take him up on two points that he made. The one is a point that he made here to-day and the other is a point on which he was conveniently silent to-day. The one point is that the question of provincial autonomy, which was one of their former objections, is not relevant in this case. There I agree with him. The other point is that in connection with the Bantu Education Act and other similar laws their attitude is—and he quoted it—that there should be no division. “We must maintain the principle that education is indivisible”. That is what he himself read out here. He said that that was their attitude and that that was why they were supporting this Bill. But in that same quotation which he read out that argument was used to justify their attitude that education for the Bantu, if it was transferred to the Central Government, should not be controlled by any other Department but the Department of Education, Arts and Science, because, he said, “education is indivisible”.

We only had one Department of Education in 1953.

That is not true. It was stated very clearly in 1953 that a sub-department of education would be set up under the Department of Native Affairs. They were opposed to it. They said that it should not be done; they said that the education of the various races should not be entrusted to different departments. But I am very pleased to see that they have now adopted this attitude; I am pleased to see that they have been converted. I am pleased that they now agree with us that the education of the various races should be looked after by the various State Departments of Education. Does the hon. member not agree with that?

We cannot oppose it because there is an Act in that regard on the Statute Book to-day.

The other point on which he was silent is the provision in Clause 8 which is a cardinal principle. That is why I told him the other day that I could not understand his attitude. He was the one who said that we could not entrust Bantu control bodies with the responsibility of education because they were not able to undertake that responsibility. That was what he said when we were discussing school boards, etc., He was one of the strongest opponents of that principle and he opposed it with all the force at his command.

When I asked him across the floor of the House the other day whether he no longer held that view, he said that he still held that view. I then told him that I could not understand him because that principle was embodied in this Bill. He now says that he is still opposed to it; and that it should not be done. But that principle is embodied in this Bill and he is supporting it in this Bill.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we have every reason to be amazed at the attitude adopted by the Opposition in this connection. But at the same time let me ask him this: Why should we make a fuss about it? They are agreeing with us at last after opposing it for so many years. Let us at least be grateful for that.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, before I moved the adjournment of the debate the other evening I remarked that this Bill was of the utmost importance. I want to repeat that this Bill is of the utmost importance.

I contend that no person, no party, no Government dare allow the soil of the Republic of South Africa to be polluted or infested with weeds. We must always remember that we are only holding the soil of the Republic in trust, as it were, for future generations. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that that land is handed over to future generations free of weeds and as fertile as possible. I therefore appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), as the spokesman of the United Party has said here that the United Party will support this Bill. Of course, anybody who has the interests of the country at heart has no alternative but to adopt that attitude. I must say that in discussing weeds here, I am speaking in the first instance of weeds in the Cape, that part of the Republic with which I am most familiar. I am well aware of the fact that the noxious weeds in the Cape are also noxious weeds in the other provinces. I wonder whether we have a true picture of the scope of weed infestation in the Republic of South Africa? I wonder how many of us in this House are aware of the number of plants which have been declared to be noxious weeds in the Republic? The House may perhaps be interested to hear that there are no fewer than 27 proclaimed noxious weeds. Since that is the case, it is desirable and necessary for us to give our most earnest attention to this matter.

I should like to go into the history of our efforts to combat noxious weeds. In the Cape, in the first instance—this must have been at least 80 years ago—the Divisional Councils of the Cape were charged with the responsibility of eradicating noxious weeds. At that time the most noxious weed in the Cape was the bur-weed, which was particularly harmful to the wool industry. The Divisional Councils concentrated on eradicating the burweed. As I say, notwithstanding the fact that we started combating this noxious weed 70 or 80 years ago, we still have burweed in our veld to-day and it is still just as harmful as it was in the past. This is understandable, Mr. Speaker. The Divisional Councils followed a system of appointing weed inspectors. In those old days the natural method of transport was on horseback. Accordingly, the weed inspector rode from farm to farm and tried to control the growth of noxious weeds. It was not too difficult at that stage to find out whether there were noxious weeds such as burweed on a particular farm because it was the most noxious weed at the time. At that time we were still putting our livestock in camps overnight. When an inspector arrived at the farm early in the morning before the farmer drove his stock into the veld, all he had to do was to walk about among the sheep and he could determine immediately whether there was still burweed on that farm. There is one thing about a sheep and that is that when it comes across burweed, it pushes its head into the weed and the seed of the weed clings onto the sheep’s head. It was quite easy for that inspector therefore to ascertain whether or not he had to tell the farmer that he had not yet done his duty by eradicating the burweed properly. But as time went on noxious weeds increased in spite of those methods that were followed. The Provincial Council then decided to undertake the eradication of noxious weeds itself. I do not want to express an opinion as to whether this was a good and sensible step or not. In the first place what happened then was that we changed over from animal-drawn transport to mechanical transport. The result was that the weed inspector then made use of mechanical transport to do his work. Moreover, there was not even one inspector for every district. The Provincial Council appointed inspectors to cover a certain area—in some cases up to four districts. The inspector then drove around the district in his motor-car. What was more, at that stage we were starting to use jackal-proof fencing and the sheep were no longer placed in camps overnight. Accordingly, the inspector could not go to the camp to find out whether there were still noxious weeds on the farm. If he wanted to do his work properly he was compelled either to borrow a horse from the farmer and ride around the farm to look for weeds or do so on foot. I think everyone will agree with me when I say that this was an impossible task. It was not possible for that inspector to do his work with the result that a system was introduced in terms of which the inspector went from farm to farm and left a notice there telling the farmer to destroy noxious weeds on his property. There can be no doubt that in spite of that noxious weeds increased more and more. There is one important reason why those noxious weeds—and I am still speaking more particularly about the burweed—increased to a very large extent and that is that when our large rivers like the Orange River, the Riet River, the Modder River and others, came down in flood, their banks became infested with this burweed. In this way the burweed increased more and more. It became so bad that a strong agitation was set afoot at the Divisional Council Congresses, particularly in the Cape, and the Union Government was asked to relieve the Provincial Councils of responsibility for the eradication of noxious weeds. In 1934 therefore the Government took over the eradication of what I might almost call the dreaded jointed cactus and declared it to be a noxious weed. The Union Government then concentrated on eradicating jointed cactus.

We cannot deny that the Union Government had a fair measure of success in this regard. But where they did succeed in clearing the land I do not know whether it will continue to remain free of weeds. That is a different matter entirely. I must admit that when the hon. the Minister told the House the other day that jointed cactus had already spread to all four provinces, I was very shocked. Knowing how swiftly jointed cactus spreads and having always been under the impression that jointed cactus was confined more particularly to the Eastern Province it was a shock to me to learn that that dreaded plague has now spread to all four provinces of the Republic. It is all the more necessary therefore for legislation to be introduced and passed to make the combating of weeds. I admit that jointed cactus is enemy No. 1 today. The measures governing the combating of noxious weeds in the Republic must be complied with more strictly than has been the case in the past. The hon. the Minister has told us that the Government has already spent R4,000,000 on the eradication of noxious weeds. Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous amount of money. As I say, I am not convinced that we have made very great progress in this regard, if we have made any progress at all. That is why something must be done.

The hon. the Minister told us that there were two methods of combating jointed cactus—hormone spraying and the mechanical eradication of this terrible plant. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us whether he has satisfied himself that those two methods are the only methods that can be used to-day to eradicate this weed. When I consider that that weed has spread to all four provinces to-day and that it is such a difficult plague to combat, then I do not doubt that the hon. the Minister will do everything in his power to keep the further spread of jointed cactus down to the minimum. It is unfortunately a weed that germinates in every little shrub. Before you realize what has happened it has spread into a large patch. It is very easily spread. People spread it, animals spread it, hares spread it; virtually everything that comes into contact with it spreads it. We can imagine the tremendous task that rests upon the shoulders of the Government in trying to combat this plague and to eradicate it eventually.

But it is not only the jointed cactus, Mr. Speaker, to which serious attention must be given. The Government started a campaign some while ago for the eradication of the prickly pear. During the Second World War much good work was done by the Italian prisoners of war whom we had in this country. They did a great deal of good work in combating the prickly pear. But it was not only man’s handiwork that was used to combat the prickly pear. I think it was during the time when General Hertzog was Prime Minister that a deputation was sent to Australia to investigate the question of the eradication of the prickly pear. On its return to South Africa the deputation recommended that the Government import cacto-blastis to combat the prickly pear and that was what the Government did. I do not want to say that the importation of cacto-blastis had the desired effect. I personally thought that it multiplied too slowly; I thought that the eradication of the prickly pear was progressing too slowly, the prickly pear multiplied more rapidly than the cacto-blastis. But then the Government used cochineal with excellent results. Cochineal helped tremendously to combat the prickly pear and made a great contribution to the success that was achieved in this regard. Unfortunately, cochineal has natural enemies in our country which have destroyed it. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot have research done in this connection? There is no doubt in my mind as to the ability of the cochineal to combat the prickly pear. I am not certain whether or not cochineal can also be used for the combating of jointed cactus. But I am aware of the good qualities of cochineal in eradicating the prickly pear. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot have research done to see whether we cannot find some means to eradicate the enemies of the cochineal? It is also only an insect, Mr. Speaker. If we can find some means to eradicate the natural enemies of cochineal so that the cochineal can multiply and continue to eradicate the prickly pear as it has been doing, then I think we will have made considerable progress in the direction of combating and eradicating the prickly pear plague.

The hon. the Minister told us that he was willing to sell arsenic pentoxide to the farmers if they concentrated on eradicating the prickly pear. The prickly pear is a proclaimed noxious weed and the farmer is compelled to eradicate it. The hon. the Minister also expressed his doubts as to whether arsenic pentoxide would have the desired effect and whether it would be dangerous to livestock. Mr. Speaker, there are two things which never become too old to be dangerous. The one is poison and the other is a charge of dynamite. The further one is away from these two things, the safer one is. That is why I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister should do everything in his power to find out whether we cannot discover something else to eradicate the natural enemies of the cochineal so that we will again have the benefit of cochineal.

There is another noxious weed which I am afraid very few farmers know about and to which very few farmers give attention and that is a weed called the spear thistle. If I may mention my own case, when I came across the spear thistle for the first time on my farm I did not know what it was. I did not know how it had got there. I did not think that livestock that I had brought in from somewhere else could have brought it to my farm. But when I looked again I saw that it was there and I realized immediately that it was not a good plant. I allowed it to grow but the next year there were many more of them. I then sent a sample to Grootfontein and they informed me that it was a spear thistle. Since then I have been doing everything in my power to eradicate it because it is very clear to me that while jointed cactus and prickly pears spread very quickly, spear thistle spreads perhaps even more quickly than those two weeds. From that day onwards I have tried to combat spear thistle on my lands. I employ labourers whose sole job it is for five months in the year to eradicate this spear thistle. It has spread considerably over a period of about three years. Hon. members can imagine what would have happened if I had not noticed it and had not taken steps to eradicate the spear thistle. I must say that I have seen spear thistle on numbers of farms in our district and when I have asked the owners “Do you not know that that is a noxious weed?”, they have said that they did not know it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for the farmer but I think we must take steps to make the farmer more aware of that terrible weed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot appoint more weed inspectors. I know that this will mean increased expenditure but I am convinced that we do not have sufficient weed inspectors. It is not possible for the weed inspectors to give proper attention to the area which they have to cover to see what is being done in connection with the combating of noxious weeds. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not seriously consider appointing more weed inspectors? I am very pleased about one paragraph in the Bill and that is the paragraph which provides for increased fines for neglecting to eradicate weeds. These fines are now being increased. I do not know whether very much success will be achieved merely by increasing the fines. We may find that a small farmer has a heavy fine imposed upon him because he has neglected to combat noxious weeds properly. If a heavy fine is imposed on such a man it is possible that it will be a blow to him from which he will not easily recover. I see that the Bill makes provision for reasonable action to be taken. I would like the hon. the Minister to ensure that inspectors act reasonably. If they see that a farmer is really doing his best to eradicate noxious weeds they should not be too nasty to prosecute that farmer because in the case of many of these weeds it is a very difficult thing to eradicate them. One can walk right over them without seeing them. We as farmers all know that. One can walk past a burweed without even seeing it. One can walk past a jointed cactus without even seeing it. Fortunately one can always see a prickly pear because it is not hidden away. But I hope that the hon. the Minister will do everything in his power to combat the dreaded jointed cactus, no matter what it costs. Our country is very valuable and until the jointed cactus is eradicated, nothing else will grow in those areas.

I was most interested listening to what I consider was a very earnest speech by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker), a man who obviously has had a great deal of practical experience in the handling of noxious weeds and who shows a very considerable knowledge in regard to weed killers and other aspects of this problem. He spoke as a man from the land. The remarks which I wish to make come from a man in the town, a man perhaps who is concerned with the end effect which may result from the use of various types of weed killers, who is concerned with what the ultimate end effect may be not only on the produce of the country, but on the animals and possibly on the people of this country. It is a source of gratification to see in the Bill that the Minister is taking steps to deal with people under Clause 2 where they are careless in the use of the various weed killers and other preparations, which will be supplied in some cases at great expense for use to destroy various types of noxious weeds. I believe that that is a good thing, but I also think the time has come when the hon. Minister should review the attitude of his own Department to this particular question of weed killers and insecticides as a whole.

Answers to questions which have been directed to the hon. Minister from time to time in regard to these various preparations have indicated that by law they have to be registered and they can only be registered with the approval of his Department, and when these preparations are marketed and distributed they have to bear certain precautions and warnings in regard to use, in regard to dilution and in regard to the period of the residual activity which may remain on any produce on which they are used. That is fair enough, but no Department can control the manner in which these dangerous preparations can be used by people who may not be fully aware of the potential danger they have, and I believe that this is a matter which needs considerable attention by the Department to ensure that every possible means is used to disseminate this information. To my mind the Department will have to adopt a more realistic attitude towards a study of the harmful effects of these various preparations. As far as the weed killers are concerned, I believe dangers do exist, and I also believe that it is something that we cannot ignore. There are many factors which should be included in the study which the Department makes. I refer to the question of excessive application by the users; I refer to the fact that in certain low-rainfall areas, it may take a long time for the various poisons to be diluted and washed away, and I refer too to the fact that some of these poisons have quite a long period of residual activity.

I have put various questions to the hon. Minister in the past in order to get a picture of the subject which I believe is assuming considerable importance in our country, a vast agricultural country. I asked the Minister earlier this year what quantities of each insecticide were issued or used by his Department during each year from 1960 to 1963, and naturally that would include the matter of weed killers. The answer came—

I submit that no private enterprise would require statutory legislation to make it keep a stock control of the products which it handles and I do not believe that the Minister’s Department needs a clause laid down in the statute to indicate that any poisons which it issues or hands out for use to various farmers and others should be controlled very rigorously, and I submit that one word from the Minister could remedy that position straight away.

There were further questions addressed to the Minister in regard to the amounts of insecticides and weed killers which have been manufactured or imported into this country and it is quite definite from the answers which were given in great detail that vast quantities of preparations are in fact manufactured or imported into this country and that many of them are dangerous. The hon. Minister himself has referred on several occasions to the Dichloro and Trichloro phenoxyacetic acids, which I think are normally termed the hormone weed killers. He has referred to their use, to the effectiveness of their use, …

May I ask the hon. member whether they are poisonous?

They are not scheduled as a poison in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, but they are regarded as poisonous. They have a certain residual action, and I do not believe that a great deal is known as to what possible side-effects they may have. These hormone weed killers come in four types—there is the acid itself, there are the salts, the amines and the esters, and they all have varying degrees of solubility. So it is not always possible to assess the extent of the residue which will remain after their application and it is not always possible to assess what effect rain, in small quantities or in larger quantities, would have in the distribution of these hormone weed killers to other areas. It is also scientifically known that certain crops, and I refer more particularly to the leguminous crops, are susceptible to these weed killers. So that if they are used in large quantities it does seem to me that there could be an indirect effect on leguminous crops situated in areas where spraying is taking place. In the Minister’s own publication which I have read with interest, the publication of his own Department, it says quite frankly that low concentrations of Methoxone does not as a rule cause serious damage, and then it goes on to say—

But these hormone weed killers do remain effective for a fairly lengthy time. It has been put down as a period of approximately six weeks, and it is interesting to let one’s mind wonder over what could happen in certain areas where these hormone weed killers are allowed to remain six weeks in contact with possibly edible foods.

There is also the question, and this is not primarily concerned with weeds, of the Chlorenated hydrocarbons and organic phosphates, and I do not believe, Sir, that the warning that at present exists on the labels instructing users as to the methods they should employ in using these products is a sufficient safeguard to the people who ultimately have to use the produce of this land.

I understood the hon. Minister to say in his speech that there had not been many fatalities as far as the use of weed killers is concerned. I think he said that a few human beings and 14 donkeys had been the casualties which had been reported to him. I submit that basically that is not an accurate statement, because basically I do not think that in South Africa we know what harm weed killers and insecticides as a whole are doing as far as fatal results are concerned. I can substantiate that because questions addressed to the hon. Minister and the hon. Minister of Health last year indicated quite definitely that no separate figures for deaths due to insecticides were kept in this country.

I only referred to arsenic pentoxide.

I appreciate that, but if you take all the insecticides, there are fatalities.

The hon. Minister of Health admitted that he had some records but that he had not a complete picture of the deaths due to insecticide poisoning because records were not kept separately. I believe that it is time that something should be done in that connection.

Then, Sir, I have referred to the question of the residue being dissolved in rain water and being distributed in other areas. I believe it is a question too that requires very close examination, and I do not believe that at the moment it is receiving the attention of the Minister’s Department, because as late as last year, when I addressed a question to him on the subject for residual action of insecticides and the contamination of water, the answer came back from the Minister that no steps had been taken in this direction to ascertain what were the effects of contamination by insecticides of the water supplies in this country. It seems almost as if there is no definite knowledge and no desire to know.

I would like to crave your indulgence, Sir, to refer for a moment or two to a question of not a weed killer, but of a rodenticide which has enjoyed a certain amount of publicity in the last few days in the Press and also on the South African Broadcasting Corporation. A few days ago I was interested to read in the Burger an article headed “Dodelike gif ingespan teen muisplaag”. I read with great interest that it dealt with another deadly insecticide which our country will have to deal with at some time or other. The new poison used against this plague of mice is zinc phosphide. It is mentioned in the article that previously strychnine had been used. To put this in a realistic form, it is interesting to consider that a medicinal dose of strychnine is one-thirtieth to one-eighth of a grain and that the recorded fatal dose to a human is one and a half grains of strychnine. Now we have an article which says that this new remedy, zinc phosphide, which is going to be very effective, is going to be cheaper than strychnine. Strychnine sells at R7 per 100 lbs and the new zinc phosphide at R2 per 100 lbs. So large quantities will probably be used. Following on that article in the paper, we heard over the news service at 7 o’clock of the same day the fact that 50 black seagulls had been found dead. Apparently they had been flying along and they suddenly became paralysed and dropped out of the heaven on to the ground or into the seas. Then an interesting controversy apparently developed in the newspapers, because first it was thought that possibly the black gulls had become victims of the mice which they had consumed, the mice having been poisoned by strychnine or zinc phosphide. The zinc phosphide apparently had been distributed in large quantities, because the Burger mentioned that the mixture had to be mixed in a concrete mixer. So, at the moment it is not quite clear whether the strychnine or zinc phosphide which killed the mice had a fatal effect on the birds. In my mind I want to take this a step further: I wonder what is going to happen to the birds which fall into the sea and which are consumed by the fish, and what may happen to the humans who eat the fish?

Order! The hon. member must restrict himself to weed killers.

Yes, Sir, I raised that because I believe that it was a typical example of the danger which confronts us if we disregard the potentially harmful weed killers and insecticides which are available to people to-day. But I am coming right back to weed killers and I want to refer briefly to an article which appeared in the Cape Times also this week under the heading “Poison coffee killed farmer, court told”. When one reads through this article, one finds that in this particular instance the fatality was due to arsenic, and if one reads further one finds that first of all the district surgeon reported that death had been caused by a massive dose of arsenic, and further on that the wife of the person who had died said that her husband always kept arsenic in the house to fight weeds in the surroundings, and that he had often warned the servant who helped him about the house about the poisonous properties of arsenic. There is a case in point where a weed killer has been responsible for a death. I want to go a little bit further, also on the subject of weed killers. I was interested to read in the report of the General Manager of the South African Railways last year an article in which he outlined the methods which the S.A. Railways were employing to combat weeds at the side of the tracks, and it gives a picture of weed killers being sprayed on the track near Vrede in the Orange Free State. Below the picture it says—

There is no mention in the report of the General Manager of Railways this year that this process of dealing with weeds is continuing, but one can assume that it is, and I wonder whether sufficient liaison has been established between the hon. Minister’s Department and the Department of Railways to make sure that the herbicides are handled in a manner approved by the Minister’s Department. But what is happening to them afterwards, what is happening to the area at the side of the railway track where the herbicides have been sprayed; what is happening when rains come along and wash the various poisons into fields adjoining the railway line? I believe that that is something too which requires serious consideration.

In conclusion I would like to stress to the Minister that the time has come when a very realistic and serious view should be taken towards any form of insecticide, in its application, in its distribution and in the end-result on the final products, many of which are used on the tables in the homes of South Africa.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) on his interesting speech. I was pleased to see that the other side of the House so heartily supported this measure to eradicate noxious weeds. The hon. member issued a warning against the use of poisonous substances which could constitute a danger to human life.

I want to confine myself to a particular weed in pursuance of a few letters and telegrams that I have received since this Bill was published. We do of course have certain various types of noxious weeds, and as a wool farmer I have in mind a particular weed which damages wool and which lowers the quality of the wool. This is the burweed, a weed that we have known for some years now. Laws have been passed to eradicate it, people have been prosecuted in the past because they have neglected to eradicate it and many people have done their best to eradicate it. Most farmers have realized how dangerous this weed has been to their wool and they have tried to eradicate burweed. Nevertheless certain factors have contributed to the fact that we have not been successful in eradicating it after a period of 100 years or more. There are reasons for this. There are parts of our country to which no laws regarding the eradication of burweed apply. The seeds are swept down by the rivers during floods and the banks of those rivers are infested with the weed. This happens after heavy rains. After 14 days to three weeks the burweed springs up in large numbers in spite of the fact that a few days before the owner of the farm may have dug up all the burweed along the river bank. I agree with the hon. member that one does not always see it. I myself have often dug it up with a spade and after walking over it have turned round to see it still there. But the position is that it is very difficult to eradicate the burweed and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to assist us in this regard and to help us to eradicate this weed in the overgrown areas, those areas along the river bank where the bush is thick. It is extremely difficult to eradicate the weed there. If we had a weed killer—which as far as I know we do not have—with which to spray it in its early stages of growth, it would help us a great deal.

A weed that has not yet been declared to be a noxious weed is the ordinary scotch thistle or blue thistle. It is spreading to such an extent and it damages wool to such an extent that I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to this specific weed. I make a habit of attending one or two wool auctions each year and chatting with the buyers there and the complaints that they make in regard to the thorns of the scotch thistles in the wool are very serious. They are continually working with wool and their hands are soft and when they find these thorns in the wool, they become annoyed and they do not give that wool the necessary attention because of the thorns in it. This weed spreads very quickly, particularly near a dam or any loose soil. This is particularly the case in regard to soil conservation works and even in regard to bare patches of ground where the soil is turned over in order to encourage growth. The first thing that comes up there is the blue thistle and when one builds a dam one finds that by the first or second year the wall of that dam is covered with blue thistle. That is where one’s sheep normally drink and their wool is damaged in this way. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to declare the blue thistle to be a noxious weed. I know that I am asking a very great deal in urging its eradication because this will require the co-operation of every individual, every farmer and every farm labourer. We will also require a great deal of assistance from the State because this is a very serious problem but this blue thistle is becoming a plague in our country.

The third thing that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is dodder. It comes up in the lucerne. Where it comes from I do not know. We think that it may perhaps be mixed with the lucerne seed. As a farmer who has been buying lucerne seed for many years, I always ask for clean seed, but I do not know whether I am always given clean seed. I think that very strict control must be exercised over the sale of lucerne seed.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) spoke about poisons. It is very dangerous to manufacture poisons which are too strong. Many years ago we had a great plague of locusts and we made use of poison in large quantities. The workers who were spraying the locusts wanted to prove to the official in charge that they were using a certain quantity of poison per day, which they never did. They threw the poison into shallow holes which later filled with water and, after some years, almost 20 years afterwards, I came into one of my camps and found 40 of my ewes dead. Not only this, but lying around the ewes there were about 100 dead vultures which had been eating the ewes. This proves how deadly the poison is because a vulture does not die easily. That is why a warning must be issued against the manufacture of very strong poisons.

Lastly, as far as the jointed cactus is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) that it is becoming a danger, just as prickly pear was a danger. When the Department started eradicating prickly pears with cochineal and cactoblastis I was opposed to it because I thought that it was unnecessary to eradicate prickly pear in my part of the country. But there are certain parts of the country where we must eradicate it. The same thing holds good for jointed cactus. This has spread and I am sorry to hear that it has now spread to all four provinces. It is even planted as a shrub in gardens, and I think that this should be forbidden. That is a very dangerous thing to do. It is virtually impossible to kill it. The only way to do so is to burn it but it will probably already have propagated itself again between the time it is uprooted and the time it is dry enough to burn. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to regard the blue thistle as a serious threat to the wool farmer because it is encroaching on vast areas of veld. The drier the veld is, the better the thistle grows.

Mr. Speaker, of course, we heartily support this Bill. We are very pleased that stricter measures are now being taken to control weeds. We have had some very interesting speeches here this afternoon. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) sketched for us the history of the control over weeds over a long period, but with all of this, weeds are still spreading, and I agree with him. We also had a very interesting speech from the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) who sketched the other side of the picture, the methods that we are using which may be dangerous. Perhaps we do not know how dangerous they are. We must find out.

As far as burweed is concerned, I think that to a large extent the control exercised by the farmers themselves is not strict enough. Stricter measures ought to be applied. If burweed does not grow too thickly, it can be eradicated. My own farm is completely cleared of it because I have eradicated it. One can do so, but then one must be precise. If one’s neighbour does not clear his farm as well, one will find it on one’s own farm again sooner or later. It is not so easy to eradicate blue thistle because it has a large amount of seed but on the other hand it does not spread so quickly in the veld. It grows in loose soil but not in the veld. It is a pioneering plant to a large extent. It has some advantages but it is also poisonous in the north-western areas. There are farmers who have lost many sheep that have been poisoned by blue thistle. I even know of people who have died because the seed of the blue thistle has been mixed with wheat. It is not necessary to say very much but I just want to make this point. The control up to the present has not been strict enough and that is why I am very pleased that this Bill will now apply stricter control.

This Bill deals with weeds. I wonder of this House realizes how extremely important this Bill is. The eradication of weeds is so important and our people are so aware of the fact that the word “weed“ has already become a proverbial word. People often speak about a bad person as “a weed”. It is very gratifying to see that hon. members are in agreement in this regard. I am pleased that I can agree with my fellow farmer, the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). This Bill is so important that I think it is a pity that it was not placed on the Statute Book 68 years ago. I think that I can prove that if this Bill had been placed on the Statute Book at that stage and had been in force in the Cape and Natal, and two Republics in the north would never have lost their freedom. I want to mention one example to prove this. Clause 2 (f) provides that no weeds may be sold. If such a law had been in force in the Cape and Natal 68 years ago, all the horses of the Tommies would have died of hunger because Mexican weed was brought into the country as food for their horses. I know that Mexican weed has not yet been declared to be a weed, but it is a weed and weeds cost the State millions of rand. A further result of the fact that there was no Bill of this nature 68 years ago, is that the Eastern Transvalers have each year to face the fact that it is far more expensive for them to produce maize than it is for the farmers in the Western Transvaal and the Free State because in the Eastern Transvaal they have to cope more with weeds, particularly the sort of weeds that were sold as in the old days either food or plants; weeds like the Mexican weed and cosmos which so infest the land that the Eastern Transvalers have to hoe their mealies four times more often than is the case in the Free State. That is why this Bill is so extremely important. Because of our weed problem I am sure that it costs 22½ cents more to produce a bag of maize in the Eastern Transvaal than it does in the Western Transvaal.

Hon. members spoke about jointed cactus. It was very interesting to learn from the hon. the Minister that jointed cactus originated in this country because a missionary planted one in his garden. If we had had this Bill 68 years ago, we would not have had any jointed cactus now. This proves how important it is to have a law to combat weeds. In my part of the world the farmers have to combat the dog-bush. This bush was also brought to that area by a homoeopathic missionary who believed that the bush was good for asthma and rheumatism. The tobacco farmers experience a great deal of trouble because of that bush. I have often wondered why there is so much antipathy to missionaries in the Eastern Province! I think it is because the missionaries introduced the jointed cactus in that area and in my part of the country, it is because they introduced the dog-bush there! I want to mention these few examples in order to illustrate the spread of weeds in South Africa. An old gentleman once said to me: “I read in the Bible of a man who sowed weeds at night. What should one do with such a man? Should he not be sent out of the country?” I said, yes, he should, and then he said: “Yes, but they now have a man who is sowing weeds on our national soil, Stanley Uys”! [Interjections.]

In dealing with proclaimed weeds, I want to mention the cockleburr, the burweed and the scotch thistle. One immediately asks oneself why these are proclaimed weeds. They are most detrimental as far as our wool is concerned. After sheep have come from the Protectorates I have seen the farmers having to hire a team of Bantu to remove the cockle-burrs and the burweeds from the wool. Things are so bad that the fingers of those Bantu eventually bleed from pulling out these cockle-burrs. One cannot sell wool like that. It breaks the combs in the looms. They cannot be dissolved by means of chemicals. They result in a loss of millions of rand. They are going to prove even more expensive because yesterday we passed a Bill dealing with the registration of agricultural labourers. Now all the labourers who pull the cockleburrs from the wool and those who remove the burweed will also have to be registered. This proves how much damage this weed causes. Cockleburr and bur-weed and scotch thistle result in the loss of millions of rand in South Africa. This law states that when State assistance is given to eradicate weeds, the farmer is responsible for keeping his land clean. I think that it is only right for the State to assist where it can but that the farmer should be responsible, to a far larger extent, for keeping his land clean. There are a few pertinent matters that we shall have to investigate. As far as our South African roads are concerned we shall have to take the necessary steps to see that the Provincial Administrations are held responsible for the eradication of cockleburr, burweed and scotch thistle. The Administrations’ gravel pits are some of the most important breeding grounds for these weeds. One cannot expect the farmer to do that work too. I think we shall have to hold the Provincial Administrations responsible. The hon. the Minister must also discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport because as far as our railway lines are concerned we find that here too the weed spreads very quickly indeed. Many of these weeds are not proclaimed weeds but you will appreciate, Sir, how a farmer feels after he has cleared his lands of cosmos and then sees it still growing all along the railway line. Next year his lands will again be overgrown and he will have to do all the work over again. I think that it is only fair that we should ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that steps are taken to eradicate these weeds. The municipalities will also have to do their share. Just as one cannot plant potatoes in certain areas because they become diseased, so we will have to get the municipalities to ensure that proclaimed weeds such as jointed cactus are not cultivated as shrubs in municipal areas. We must try to have that co-operation if we want to approach this matter on a national basis.

I want to discuss one of the most important aspects of the whole matter and that is in connection with water affairs. We are starting the tremendous Orange River scheme. I noticed after the Klip River came down in flood and the water flowed over a large area of land that a week afterwards the ground was covered with cockleburrs which had been washed down from the Rand Water Board area. The weeds are so thick that the farmers cannot even think of hoeing them. They have to wait until the plants are about 3 feet high and then they cut them down with a reaper and rake them together. It is interesting to note that when the cockleburr grows in individual stools, the reaper cannot cut it down because it breaks the blades of the machine. But where it grows as thick as oats it can be cut down. Once at Philippolis I saw a horse come down from the bank of the Orange River and the poor animal could not even swish away a fly because the cockleburrs in his tail hurt him. This shows how the weed is spread by the rivers. I trust that once the Orange River dams have been built, the cockleburr and the burweed which float down in the river and are washed into the dam will rot there and will not grow again. This is an aspect which the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Lands will have to watch on all the irrigation projects because the seed of this weed floats for miles down the rivers. We will have to do this otherwise the Bill will not have the desired results. That is why I am so pleased that this Bill makes thorough provision for State assistance, although the farmers will also be held responsible. I do not want to discuss the method of inspection again. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) did so very well. He illustrated how earlier, when the inspectors had to travel on horseback, they were able to see the weeds more easily than was the case at present when they used vehicles. But I want to discuss another matter. The hon. member spoke about dodder, a parasitic plant which does not grow in the ground but other plants. In our part of the world it starts on the cosmos and after it has killed the cosmos, it spreads to the mealie lands and kills the mealies as well. It causes a great deal of damage. I do not think you will rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I know of something that is similar to dodder, a new plague that has arisen in South Africa called numesia derides. I can show it to the hon. the Minister. It is a new pest that can destroy our sugar cane in South Africa. It is a new germ that is eating up our sugar. I mention this because, as we are discussing weeds, I want to ask that we should also combat this thing on the same national basis as we are combating weeds. If we do a little here and a little there, we will have no results. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again to give very serious consideration to assisting us in regard to this new plague as well. It is a small thing but it can destroy the whole sugar crop in a year or two.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) raised the very important matter of wattle trees which grow where they should not grow—in the water conservation areas. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks. I think that the hon. the Minister should tell his extension officers to take steps to combat the spread of wattle in those areas. In this regard I also want to associate myself with another important matter that has not as yet been mentioned here and that is in regard to the “ouhout” tree. This is a small tree that is worth nothing but it is increasing swiftly on the south-eastern slopes of the Versamel mountains in the south-eastern Transvaal and northern Natal. This “ouhout” tree only grows on the side of the mountain facing the southeast wind and the mist from Natal. These trees grow very thickly. Wynberg is near Volksrust and the old people tell us that there is a cave in that mountain in which the Swazis used to hide 500 head of cattle during the Zulu raids. But one cannot find that cave today. It is overgrown with “ouhout” trees. These trees are infesting thousands of morgen of land, good grazing land and making that land worthless. They cannot be cut down because they are too large. Some people try to kill it by removing its bark and burning it in the second year but it is just like a wattle tree; it cannot be destroyed by burning. It is only good for one thing and that is give protection to dagga plants. It is a strange thing but dagga grows beneath it; thousands of bags of dagga are grown beneath those trees. The position is so bad that the police are considering using aircraft to search for dagga in this area because it is inaccessible even on horseback. I know of places between Volksrust and Utrecht and between Wakkerstroom and Dirkiesdorp where, as soon as the Bantu see an aircraft flying overhead, they dig up the dagga because they know that the police are searching for it. Fortunately, dagga is now a proclaimed weed, but these “ouhout” trees protect the dagga. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a very intensive investigation made for us to see whether we cannot eradicate these “ouhout” trees. Just as the jointed cactus is becoming such a plague in the eastern Cape, so these trees are becoming one of the worst plagues in the south-eastern Transvaal. I think that the hon. the Minister should also issue a word of warning to the Cape Provincial Administration to ensure that their lorries carry only clean soil beyond the area where the Port Jackson tree may perhaps be of some use. The soil in those lorries must be free of Port Jackson seed because the Port Jackson can become just as much of a problem as wattle and the “ouhout” trees. I was very impressed by the request made by the hon. member for King William’s Town. The hon. member said that we ought to declare a plant to be a weed in an area to which it is not indigenous; in other words, the farmers at Piet Retief should be able to grow wattle trees; there is no harm in that; but in the water catchment area to which these trees are not indigenous, they should be eradicated. For example, one needs the Port Jackson here to prevent the passage of drift sand, to prevent sand dunes being built up as is the case at Hout Bay. One needs the Port Jackson in this regard. But heaven help us if that Port Jackson is taken inland and starts growing on good grazing land. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister once again to have an investigation made into this question of the old-wood trees that are becoming just as much of a nuisance.

I want to discuss another matter and that is the question of poison-leaf (gifblaar). Poison-leaf is not mentioned in this Bill but we have certain areas in the south-eastern Transvaal and in northern Natal which can be used for winter grazing in the early autumn where the poison-leaf causes a great deal of damage. One finds that there is a fair amount of winter grazing on one side of the mountain but that on the other side of the mountain there is not even enough grazing for sheep. If sheep graze there they will be dead the next morning. A layman may think that they have died from boric acid poisoning, but it is not boric acid poisoning; it is another kind of poison-leaf poisoning that is causing us many problems there. I do not even want to discuss the question of the horse-thorn. As a result of bad soil conservation and overgrazing there are farms on which these horse-thorns have taken over the veld to such an extent that one cannot even cut them down. Sir, the hon. the Minister mentioned a service of which more use can be made in South Africa in regard to the eradication of these weeds. He mentioned the land service and referred to the good work that is being done by the land service. I think that this is a task which all of us in South Africa can make our own. I think for example of the Voortrekkers and the Boy Scouts. Those movements and all those people who want to perform a service for South Africa can, if only they will, also assist in freeing the soil of South Africa from these pests and weeds. Just as the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) sometimes considers it to be his special task to keep the national soil of our country free of weeds, those who write in the newspapers and so forth, so these other people must also try to perform a national service, a labour of love as far as our agricultural land is concerned, and try to make it their task to clear the soil of South Africa. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had been here when I started speaking he would have heard me tell the House that if this Bill had been placed on the Statute Book 68 years ago we would have had no Mexican weed and the Transvaal and Free State Republics would not have lost their independence because the horses of the British soldiers would have died of hunger. The British imported that weed but they would not have been able to do so had this measure then been in force.

But then he would not have been here either.

That is true; he would not have been here either. Because the hon. the Minister has referred here to the land service, I want to mention an example of what happened in one of the small countries of the world a short while ago. They say that in Israel a little boy was sitting on the side of the road with a sieve. He was sifting the soil. Somebody asked him what he was doing and he replied: “My country is small; the soil is very valuable; I am sifting the good soil and I am throwing it on the land in order to grow grain for my country, and I am using the poor soil to build the road.” Because of his love for his country he was performing that service. When we look at South Africa, this wonderful country of ours, one of the most beautiful countries in the world, one of the freest countries in the world, one of the most sought-after in the world …

But it is too wet (Nat).

… Realize that the amount of land, the number of morgen on which we can produce productively is very small in relation to the large surface area of South Africa.

It is too wet (Nat).

The hon. member is very concerned about the fact that it is too wet. It is because he is unhappy in that dry party that has dried up just like the parched desert. He is jealous; he wants to cross over to this wet (Nat) side but he does not know whether he can do so. That is why it is preying on his mind.

Mr. Speaker, I said that because we have so little fertile and good agricultural land in this country we must try to do everything in our power to eradicate not only all the noxious weeds that have already been proclaimed but also those weeds that have not yet been proclaimed but which increase the production costs of the farmer to a very large extent. We must make this country as weed-free as possible. We must also train our people and our youth to do this work. That is why we want to congratulate the hon. the Minister heartily on this Bill. I am sorry that it was not introduced a long time ago. We trust that he will receive the co-operation of the Provincial Administrations and of the public of South Africa to enable his Department to apply this measure as successfully as possible and that in a few years, with the assistance of his wonderful Department of Agricultural Technical Services and with the assistance of his extension officers he will be able to tell us: “I have succeeded by means of this Act not only in putting a stop to the spread and the increase of weeds in the country but also in eradicating those weeds.”

It goes without saying that this is a piece of legislation with which we can readily agree. We are glad that at last legislation has been introduced which will help us to get this country more free of weeds than it is at the moment. In that regard I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) who has just sat down. But, Mr. Speaker, when I find that I wholeheartedly agree with that hon. member I begin to ask myself whether I am not wrong possibly, and indeed before he had gone very far with his speech I discovered that after all I did not agree with him so wholeheartedly. I refer to what he said in connection with the way in which the Minister should treat persons who farm in a proclaimed area which has already been cleared of weeds. But he went on and dragged in all sorts of other things, including ouhout(Cordia caffra), and when he got to that point I was afraid that he would go on to deal with kromhout (vine) and suggest that that should be exterminated, and that would have put an end to our unanimity.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister once again—I know it has already been done—to the fact that the word “Officer” in the proposed new Section 5bis is not defined. We shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister will move an amendment to define the word “officer” so that we can know with which officer we are dealing—whether it is going to be a police officer or an extension officer who has to report to the Minister that in his opinion a certain piece of proclaimed land has now been cleared of weeds and that the owner of the land will thereafter be under an obligation to keep it clear. This is an important obligation which will now rest upon the owner—and quite correctly. I do not want to quarrel with that. But it is important to know who the officer is who is going to be who has to report to the Minister that a certain section of the farm has been cleared of weeds to his satisfaction. While I am talking about the obligation to keep such land free of weeds in the future I want to point out that lower riparian owners sometimes suffer tremendously as a result of the negligence of upper riparian owners whose land does not fall within the proclaimed area. The Minister will know what I am talking about when I talk about the areas of the Fish and Vlekpoort Rivers and the waters in the upper reaches of those rivers which come mostly from the mountains and from small vleis along the upper reaches of these rivers, small vleis which are already infested with weeds, with jointed cactus and burweed, etc., the seed of which then finds its way into the rivers and eventually on to the land of lower riparian owners who divert this water on to their vleis and who then have an enormous amount of trouble in getting that land clear of weeds again. I readily admit that it is difficult to inspect the land of the upper riparian owner. Indeed it can hardly be done unless one goes there on horseback—the old method to which the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) referred. The lower riparian owners constantly suffer as a result of fresh infestations of weeds. I speak from experience. I do not want to mention my own case but I am one of those who try year after year to combat weeds by exterminating fresh infestations and by means of veld conservation methods, because there is no doubt that the best way to exterminate weeds is to spare your veld once you have exterminated the weeds in that particular area. That is method No. 1. But it creates big problems in your rotational grazing scheme to try year after year to spare the same piece of veld which becomes infested afresh every year as the result of the negligence of upper riparian owners who are not subject to thorough inspection, as they ought to be—and I say that emphatically. The seed of the jointed cactus and of the burweed which grow in the soft soil between the rocks high up in the hills and in the mountains is carried down by the river, and when the lower riparian owner who goes in for conservation works diverts that water onto his land which has been cleared of weeds he causes a fresh infestation of weeds again; at every dam and in every furrow there is a fresh infestation of weeds again. I repeat that in the case of a declared area one has a big problem with the upper riparian owners who fall outside of the declared area, but in the case of an undeclared area it is an even bigger problem, and although the Act does not apply with the same force to the person who is outside the declared area, he will, if he is at all a farmer who is worth his salt, keep his land free of weeds, and he has no choice but to keep his land clear; year after year he has to fight against a fresh infestation of weeds for which he is not responsible. I want to mention just one other thing and it is this: Under the erosion schemes there is provision for the subsidization of fencing and of camps. If the farmer wants to go beyond that and erect camps for the purpose of combating weeds he receives no subsidy. He has to erect the fencing at his own expense and he may perhaps have 300 morgen under irrigation. I do not want to put forward a plea here to the Minister that that type of fencing should be subsidized under a Weeds Extermination Act, but I do want to suggest that perhaps provision can be made under the Soil Conservation Act to assist that farmer, within a declared area and within an undeclared area.

Where do you find undeclared areas? Surely there is no such thing.

Perhaps the hon. member for Kimberley (North) does not understand me. What I am talking about is an area which the State as such has cleared of weeds and declared to be an area which has been freed of weeds in terms of the Act.

But the whole of the Republic is a declared area.

The Republic is a declared area as far as the combating of weeds is concerned. But there are declared areas which the State is prepared to clear up and those are the declared areas that I am talking about; in other words, areas which the State clears up and then declares as areas which have been freed of weeds. That is the last point that I want to make-that it is necessary for farmers to fence off certain areas with the specific object of combating fresh infestations of weeds which occur on their farms year after year through no fault of their own. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give particular attention to the possibility of inserting a section in the Soil Conservation Act to make provision for assistance to farmers who find themselves in this unfortunate position. For the rest I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

The Weeds Act of 1937 which is being amended this afternoon by this Bill gave drastic powers to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. I believe this amending Bill gives the Minister even more drastic powers. Section 5 of the 1937 Act provides that where the Minister is of the opinion that an owner is not in the position to clear his own land of weeds the Minister himself can have that land cleared but he can recover the costs or part thereof from the owner. We are going further in this Bill this afternoon and in future the Minister will have the power, if he is of the opinion that land which had been infested by weed had been cleared, to declare it free of weeds and the owner will then be obliged to keep it free. This Bill even gives the Minister more power than the Weeds Act of 1937 gave him. In addition this Bill provides for heavier penalties. I believe that this Bill is the logical outcome of the application of the 1937 Act. I do not want to disagree with my colleagues, but if it is said that no progress has been made with the eradication of weeds in the past couple of years, I want to differ from them. Tremendous progress has definitely been made and if anybody who knew the Eastern Cape Province years ago goes there to-day he will see what progress has indeed been made. We readily admit that a great deal must still be done, but where progress has been made and where land has been cleared of weeds, it is necessary for the Minister to have the power to direct that such land should be kept free of weeds. Before the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) leaves the Chamber I just want to tell him this. He stated that an official had to inform the Minister that land was clear. He then added that the word “official” was not defined. If he looks at the 1937 Act he will see that “official” is indeed defined. It is defined as being a policeman, an official of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry (which is of course being amended now to read “Agricultural Technical Services”) and any other official in the Public Service who acts on the general or special authority of the Minister. I do not think there need be any fear that it will be an unauthorized official who will inform the Minister that land has been cleared.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is good that we are passing this Bill this afternoon. You will remember, Sir, that where we have discussed the question of weeds over the years under the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, it was repeatedly stated that the jointed cactus, in particular, was a national plague and that it was the task of the Government and of the Government alone to eradicate it. We adopted the attitude too that the farmer himself should also make a contribution towards the eradication of jointed cactus even if that contribution is only to show his willingness. The experience over the years—the unhappy experience—has been that the Government has cleared property, sometimes once or twice but even up to three or four times, without the farmer doing anything about it afterwards, and then we had the cry that jointed cactus had become a national plague; that the Government was to blame for the land being infested and that the Government should again clear it. I am pleased that we have got away from that approach to the problem of combating weed infestation in this country and that an attempt is now made to keep land that has been cleared in that condition, not only free of jointed cactus but free of other weeds. Hence this amending Bill we have before us this afternoon. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) said there were still parts of the country which were heavily infested. Those infested areas are to be found particularly along the coastal areas where biological methods of eradication have failed. I refer to cactoblastis and cochineal. I agree with the hon. member that further research should in particular be undertaken to discover a new type of cochineal which will perhaps be more successful, but I must say that the experience we have had of biological methods force us to conclude that biological methods have come to the end of their usefulness. I do not wish to pour cold water on the idea of the hon. member; it would be wonderful if a method could be found that would assist us …

I did not say that.

No, I agree with the hon. member; I do not wish to quarrel with him. It will be wonderful if a method could be found that would assist us, but I am afraid we shall in future have to rely on methods other than biological methods.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to one matter which I think is of the utmost importance. With the building of the Orange River development project the position is unfortunately that the water will have to be led through areas which are heavily infested with weeds to areas which are free of weeds. I refer in particular to the upper reaches of the Sundays River valley which is reasonably free of weeds to-day. The hon. the Minister knows that area and there is great concern that because of the water that will be led down the irrigation canals weeds will be brought down from the infested areas to those areas which are clear to-day. The farmers have already started a campaign through their unions in this connection. The farmers want to know whether some method or other cannot be devised to ensure that the water will be free of any noxious plants it may have collected as it flowed along. I just wanted to bring that to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I hope that by the time we get the water from the Orange River in those areas we shall have made even further progress with the eradication of jointed cactus. I am afraid, however, that there are still enough noxious plants in the upper reaches of the Fish River to spread this infestation still further perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion on this Bill we have concentrated on the eradication of jointed cactus in particular, or at least we have made that our main subject of discussion. But the eradication of the prickly pear is as important to the country as the eradication of the jointed cactus. Unfortunately we have fallen behind in the eradication of the prickly pear in recent years. There was a time when there was simply no way of eradicating prickly pear apart from doing it mechanically, a method of eradication which is of course totally impracticable, expensive and also uneconomical. That was after the importation of arsenic pentoxide had been stopped and before 245T was made available for the eradication of the prickly pear. When 245T was first made available for the eradication of the prickly pear the Department discovered to its regret there was such a wastage and that it was so expensive to eradicate the prickly pear in that way that it stopped issuing it and the eradication of prickly pear with 245T then came to a stop. A concession has now been made to those who cut down the prickly pear trees and stack them in heaps in that an emulsion of 245T will shortly be available to them which will be cheaper and which will also be more effective as experiments have proved. The farmers are anxious to use that. Unfortunately, however, they cannot yet get that 245T emulsion. I understand from the Department that they hope to have it available shortly. As I have said we have fallen behind and we must catch up. As far as the farmers are concerned they are serious about the matter. They are prepared to cut down the prickly pear trees, stack them in heaps and spray them provided they can get that spray. There are places, however, where it is practically a physical impossibility to cut down the prickly pear. There are also places where it is very difficult to transport the spray, particularly in the mountainous areas and there the most effective method is arsenic pentoxide. I may just say this for the information of hon. members that I think some members are under the impression that arsenic pentoxide is provided free of charge to persons who want to eradicate prickly pear. That is not so. The farmers have to buy it at the full price and that brings me to another request I have to make to the hon. the Minister. I speak under correction but I think the latest price of arsenic pentoxide is 14 cents per lb. and one pound does not go very far. The costs run very high. I therefore want to ask that arsenic pentoxide should be freed from import duty. If that were done I think the price would be considerably less and if large quantities were purchased I think the price would be reduced even further. If the Government were to decide, however, to sell it even cheaper I think it would be a great encouragement to farmers to eradicate prickly pear even faster.

But you are mad to eradicate the prickly pear!

The hon. Whip here who may perhaps be disappointed …

Order! The hon. member should not pay attention to interjections.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is necessary that the Whip be enlightened on this subject and I would very much like to do so. Perhaps this information will also be very useful to the rest of this House. I just want to say to those people who think we shall harm South Africa by clearing it of prickly pear, that South Africa has already lost a great deal of revenue as a result of this terrible evil.

What about the thornless prickly pear?

The thornless prickly pear has been cultivated from the ordinary prickly pear and I can tell the House that if farmers left the thornless prickly pear alone and it bore fruit and that fruit grew in turn and produced again, they would be surprised to see how many of those thornless prickly pears had thorns again. They should not reassure themselves too much by thinking that the thornless prickly pear cannot also become a threat to South Africa. Those people who plant thornless prickly pear, without keeping count of that fact, are on dangerous ground. I would be much happier if there were no prickly pears in South Africa, whether they had thorns or not. Even though the hon. member may differ from me in that regard.

What about the “noorsdoring” species of Euphorbia).

No, that is good stock feed; it is not like the prickly pear which is a big evil. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are the two tested methods of eradicating the prickly pear and the jointed cactus, namely, 245T and arsenic pentoxide. We should like to ask the Department to do everything in its power to make these available to the farmers.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Berea has returned. I do not intend crossing swords with him in the chemical field or in regard to chemicals, because I think I shall come off worse. But one feels disturbed, Sir, when you see the type of question that hon. member has on the Order Paper from time to time. It would seem that the farmers were on dangerous ground with the insecticides and weed-killing materials they were using and that the hon. member objected to that. He refers to all the poisonous materials which the farmers are supposed to be using injudiciously. He has referred to 245T. I can tell him that farmers with experience are very satisfied with 245T in the eradication of prickly pear and jointed cactus. He must remember that we also have the chemists of the Department at our disposal. I do not know whether I am competent to conclude that they lack the necessary knowledge perhaps but it has not as yet been proved that 245T is poisonous. I want to go so far as to say that after 245T has been used for many years there has not been a single case where any poisoning has been detected. As far as arsenic pentoxide is concerned, I agree that it is very poisonous. I once went with two chemists from the Department of Agriculture to carry out an inspection on the farm of a Mr. Dorfling in the district of Uitenhage where his farm labourers had been busy for months treating prickly pear with arsenic pentoxide. Those farm labourers were doing that from morning till night; they did nothing else. I might add that the necessary precautionary measures were taken and that the labourers have been warned; they also know what they are handling. The chemists looked at their hands, at their nails and asked them whether they had ever had any ill effects. Their reply was “no”. I agree with the hon. member that the data supplied to the hon. the Minister that only 14 donkeys had died, is incorrect. I myself have suffered more damage; more animals have died. But I want to say this to the hon. member: Has he ever seen a flock of sheep that have taken to prickly pear? Has he ever seen what their mouths look like? Has he any idea of how many stock have died in South Africa as a result of sore mouths caused by the prickly pears they had eaten? I can tell him that thousands more have died from that than the few who have died from arsenic pentoxide poisoning. I put questions to those chemists and I want to put the same questions to the hon. member for Berea. When we talk about the very poisonous quality of arsenic pentoxide we also know that it is practically in-destructable; that it retains that quality for many years. But I want you to consider the following, Mr. Speaker. A very small amount of arsenic pentoxide is injected into each prickly pear tree. That spreads through the whole tree. The blades fall off and decompose, but this is spread over a comparatively large area. The hon. member can think for himself what percentage of arsenic pentoxide there is over that area. Then the rain comes along and that arsenic flows down to the dams. There may be 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 gallons of water in that dam. One and a half inches of rain have fallen and there has been a flow to the dam. I now want the hon. member to consider this: What concentration of arsenic pentoxide will there be in that dam and what percentage will sink to the mud at the bottom? I think he is harping too much on this subject, Sir. I wonder what would have happened to the public of the Republic of South Africa, with our vegetable production, with our fruit production, with our wheat and mealie production, with the weeds we have to eradicate, with the stock we have to dose and with the dipping of our stock had we not used poisons? I believe the hon. member for Berea is a chemist. I want to ask him how many of the medicines he sells for human consumption are not also marked “Poison” and prohibited under some Act or another? But because it is used in reasonable quantities it is harmless. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) laughs, but I wonder whether he knows that some of the prescriptions he has had made up have even contained a little strychnine. I hope, with the expert knowledge he has of this subject, the hon. member will on a later occasion give us a little more information in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the danger is so very great. The farmers realize that they are dealing with poisonous materials. They do not handle it carelessly. There may be an accident here and there; I do not deny that, but where do you not have accidents. We have been given certain data by the hon. the Minister; we are satisfied that that data is not correct. But how many people have not already been buried because of the wrong medicines they were given? I am only making a plea in this connection because it seems to me that the issue of poisonous materials for the eradication of weeds and other farming activities are in jeopardy. I have to point out that they should not be jeopardized; that the arguments are wrong. We have to eradicate weeds. We are aware of the fact that with the building of every dam the agricultural land of South Africa becomes smaller. Every town that is laid out makes our agricultural land smaller. Our agricultural land is not getting bigger. It is quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker, but it is your best agricultural land that becomes infested with weeds—otherwise you would not have had weeds in the Eastern Province, Mr. Speaker. Weed infestation is the heaviest in the Eastern Province and that proves that that is the most fertile soil. …

They are the worst farmers.

The hon. member is wrong. There are certain areas where the climate is so dry and the soil so infertile that weeds do not even grow there. The fact that there are no weeds is not due to the efficiency of the farmers. I want to call the hon. Minister of Agriculture as witness. Surely he would never have lived on De Rust in the district of Oudtshoorn but for the fact that it is one of the best parts of the country. That is also why you find so many weeds there. We cannot allow that fertile land to become weed infested, Sir. That is why it is essential that weeds are eradicated. That is why it is essential that we keep the best parts of our country free of weeds.

There are people who think we should not make use of these poisons, that you should do it mechanically. The previous Minister of Agriculture and I once carried out an inspection at the municipal grounds of Uitenhage where they were eradicating jointed cactus by mechanical means. They chopped down prickly pear to reach the jointed cactus but the object was to eradicate jointed cactus. We were told that that mechanical process cost the Government approximately R100 per morgen; it cost nearly R100 to clear grazing land of jointed cactus, grazing land which would probably not have fetched half that price on the open market. I believe it is necessary for us to pass this legislation. The farmers realize that the Minister now has power to impose heavy penalties on them. The farmers realize that heavy fines can be imposed on them. They are willing and anxious to co-operate to free South Africa from weeds. They want to make one request however, and it is that the Government—and when I talk about the Government I have in mind in particular the Minister who has the most to do with this matter—should place the necessary remedies at their disposal. If the Government does its share the farmers are willing and anxious to do their share as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my expectations in regard to the support which this Bill should receive from both sides of the House have been realized. I think that the whole debate has borne witness to the fact that there has not only been a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House as far as the principles of this Bill are concerned but that all members who have participated in the debate have realized the necessity for taking far more effective, far more serious and possibly far more comprehensive steps in connection with the question of noxious weeds in our country. This Bill of itself does not aim at proclaiming more plants to be noxious weeds than it is necessary to do so. The main purpose of this Bill is to consolidate the existing laws, the existing Weeds Act and the separate law dealing with jointed cactus, into one law so that we will have one single Weeds Act and one approach to all weeds, their treatment, their eradication and all possible State assistance that can and will be given in regard to the eradication of any plants, whether they be prickly pears or jointed cactus, which have been proclaimed to be noxious weeds.

I want to thank the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who in his brief speech emphasized the fact that people must realize that it is not only the duty of the State to keep our lands cleared but that it is in the first instance the duty of the people to do so. Because it is the duty of the people it will of necessity be the duty of those who deal with the soil, who are the owners of land, who are the trustees of that land to ensure that their land is not infested with noxious weeds. One point was made in the debate by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) who is not here now. He referred to the rooikrantz and Port Jackson. We do not know when and how the Port Jackson was introduced into this country. We know that it is useful in some places but that it has very detrimental effects in other places. We know how widespread it is along the south-western coastal areas. We find farms in the areas of Mossel By, Albertinia, Swellendam, Heidelberg and Riversdale where there are many sand dunes—the Port Jackson likes sandy soil—and which over the years have remained free of it and are still clean. Then there are other farms that are already so infested that it is beyond the control of the farmer himself to combat it as a weed—although it is not a proclaimed weed. But that weed threatens the existence of those farmers and for what reason? The reason is simply that one farmer may be determined to eradicate it when he realizes what a danger it is while another farmer does not feel that way. The position has now got out of hand and we are requested to declare Port Jackson to be a noxious weed and then the State has to bear the responsibility for its eradication at State expense. That approach is completely wrong. Apart from the agreement in this House regarding the serious light in which we must regard this matter I believe that this Bill will also have the effect of making the farmers more conscious of the need for eradicating weeds—because of the discussion that we have had—and will make them realize that they must stop this thing before it becomes a danger, if they are able to do so.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) asked me a few questions. I just want to tell him that if he had listened well to my Second Reading speech he would have received replies to some of his questions. We are continuing with research in regard to methods of combating noxious weeds, whether by means of spraying or by means of parasitic or biological methods, and two or three years ago we sent officials of my department to South America to make an investigation there and to see whether there were any new parasites that we could import. We have also imported new parasites and have made tests, under the strictest control measures possible of course, so that there could be no danger of infection until we could be sure that they were effective. We are continuing with that sort of investigation. We are still trying to find cheaper methods of combating weeds, particularly in respect of the jointed cactus and prickly pear, the responsibility for the eradication of which we feel the State has to a very large extent assumed.

I want now to explain the broad principle of the Weeds Act. When we declare a weed to be a noxious weed under the Weeds Act, we do not, as is apparently the impression of the member for East London (City) (Dr.Moolman), declare an area to be a weed-infested area. Those weeds are declared to be noxious weeds in respect of the whole of the Republic, or part of it, and depending upon the density of infestation, the density in certain parts, and if the State or the Minister is convinced that it is beyond the ability of a farmer or a group of farmers or a community individually or jointly to combat that weed effectively, then the State steps in and provides assistance. For the rest, whether in connection with burweed or the blue scotch thistle—those are declared weeds—the State does not give any assistance. We give information and guidance in regard to the manner in which the weed can be eradicated but those are weeds which we feel the farmers must themselves eradicate. The farmers have to consider the eradication of these weeds as forming part of their farming operations. After all, the fruit farmer does not receive a subsidy to spray his trees. I just want to issue the warning that this principle must not be interpreted to mean that any plant will be declared to be a weed and that the State will then assume responsibility for its eradication without regard being had to the responsibility of the farmer to keep his own property cleared. We cannot do so and that idea must not take root, if we have a weed which is of such a nature and whose infestation is of such a nature that it is beyond the ability of the individual to eradicate it, then the State has a duty and is compelled to take action in order to make it possible to eradicate that weed.

The hon. member also told us that we should declare black wattle to be a weed. It would be difficult to declare it to be a weed because in some parts of the country people make their living from it. We shall then have to say: It is not a weed in this area but it is a weed in that area. I know that it is a nuisance in certain parts. I myself find it a nuisance but we do have weed killers to combat it. If it is sprayed when it is still a young plant, it can be eradicated. I myself have a farm where this weed grows on the river banks. I have already chopped down trees—one can at least do something with its wood—and burnt the branches but it has sprung up again like the hair on a dog’s back. I have ascertained that the cheapest manner to keep one’s land free of it is, when the plants are small and just after the rain, to organize one’s labourers and say: Pull it out by the roots. One can do that. People have told me that I shall never be able to eradicate it on my farm but I have been fairly successful in doing so and it has not cost me so very much.

I think that I replied quite clearly to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) in regard to the question that he asked about officials. There is a definition of an official in the Weeds Act. The question is sometimes asked how anyone but an official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services can institute proceedings against a farmer. That is not actually true. Take the municipal area as an example. I have the power to appoint a municipal official in a municipal area as a weeds inspector to supervise and be responsible to the department for the eradication of weeds in that area. In terms of the Weeds Act I can appoint an official in such an area. But we have never considered appointing a municipal official to institute proceedings against farmers. We have our weed inspectors, we have our departmental officials whom we use. We may make use of police officials, which we sometimes do, to institute proceedings. In that sense the Act makes provision whereby I can appoint such a person as an official of the department to carry out a certain specific task.

May I ask a question: What about the infestation of Native trust land?

I am pleased that the hon. member has mentioned that matter. He has said that he is concerned about the spread of weeds from Native trust land into the White man’s area. He wants to know what I am going to do in that regard. Another hon. member has spoken about the weeds that are brought into the Republic from the Protectorates. The Protectorates are regarded as being Bantu land and, of course, I have no control over that land. It is for the Government of the Protectorates to decide what they are going to do. But in the Bantu homelands of the Republic we have State Departments of this same Government which have certain functions to carry out there. Most of the agricultural officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development are people from my department. They have been transferred to that department. There is the closest co-operation between the two departments. I do not want to say that in the past the necessary amount of attention has always been given to the eradication of weeds in those areas or to the training of the Bantu to enable them to understand that it is their land and that it will be in their interest to keep it cleared. In order to illustrate the hearty cooperation that we have and the serious light in which the Department of Bantu Administration and Development views this matter, which I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, I may just say that last year we provided the Department of Bantu Administration and Development with no less than 111,000 gallons of chemicals for the combating of weeds. That is my reply to the hon. member for King William’s Town. But just as we may point a finger at the Bantu homelands and say that they are the source of infestation and that the people there are being negligent, the Bantu can also in many cases point a finger at the White man in cases where we have neglected to keep our land cleared. That is the problem but it is one that we undertake to try and solve as best we can, so that we can derive the greatest benefit from it. There is of course a great deal of educating that has to be done, not only on the part of the Bantu but also on the part of many White people in order to obtain their co-operation in this matter.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood), if I understood him correctly, dealt with the health aspect of these weed killers, insecticides and so forth. I do not think that the injurious effects of those poisons which are used for spraying fruit and other products, to which he referred, even the poison that we use to kill rats, has anything to do with this legislation because we are dealing here with weed-killers. As far as I know, it has not yet been proved that these weed killers have such detrimental and injurious affects upon human beings, except, as I have said, arsenic pentoxide. That is the reason why we stopped supplying farmers with it at one stage. Farmers only use it to-day as a last resort in the combating of prickly pear infestation and so forth. Before we certify any spray, whether it is for combating pests on our fruit trees or on our lands, as suitable for use according to the regulations laid down, we always have negotiations with the officials of the Department of Health and discuss the matter with them. That aspect of public health is given very serious attention. I do not want to anticipate him, but I think that I can say that the hon. the Minister of Health will probably make an announcement in this connection soon which will convince the hon. member for Durban (Berea) that the Government is giving its serious attention to the possible detrimental effects which certain uses or abuses of this kind of poisonous material may have. I do not want to anticipate his announcement any further.

Mention was made of dodder, as a weed. This is of course something that we find amongst lucerne seed. I want to tell the hon. member for De Aar (Colesberg) (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) that he should buy dodder-free seed from the Little Karoo Agricultural Co-operative at Oudtshoorn.

Yes, but I do not think that the hon. the Minister should advertise any particular firm.

Yes, Sir, the hon. member knows where he can obtain dodder-free seed and I know that he can obtain it there. May I add that dodder is not such a difficult thing to combat. One does not even have to spray it. It does cause a fair amount of trouble, but this is the case in regard to any weed, whether it is scotch thistle, any other kind of thistle, burweed or Mexican weed. One has to go through one’s lucerne lands with reliable people to look for the dodder. Do hon. members know what they can do to combat it? One must clear a dodder-infested area larger than the area covered by the dodder, leave the dodder lying there and then pack wood around it and burn it. If it is burnt thoroughly enough it will not come up there again. One can keep one’s land clean in that way. There are many examples of farms which are now dodder-free. We have one-channel marketing as far as the sale of seed is concerned and we can compel our farmers, without any need for weed inspectors, to keep their seed clean by means of the price arrangements that we make. We fix various prices for clean seed and seed mixed with dodder, and it will not pay the farmer to use seed that has not been cleaned. That is the way in which to do it. I want to tell hon. members about a particular difficulty I have in regard to farmers who are Members of Parliament. Their difficulty is to farm just as efficiently while they are Members of Parliament as they farmed before they became Members of Parliament. I think I shall conclude with a story that I heard, a true story. There was a Member of Parliament who was not a farmer by profession when he came to this House. His wife had a small farm somewhere in the Northern Transvaal and when he ceased to be a member he started farming this little farm. It was dry and he had only one tractor and cultivators drawn by oxen. When the holidays came around, his daughter who was at university drove the tractor, he took the one cultivator and put his labourers behind the other cultivator and so they went along. The sun was very hot. A friend of his chanced to pass by and saw what he was doing. This man was cultivating a large piece of ground and his friend said to him: “Jan, tell me, what are you doing?” He said: “To you it may seem as though am trying to empty the sea with a spoon”. He was a minister of religion before he became a Member of Parliament. Then he said: “You know, it really seems to me as though the Lord’s blessing no longer rests upon my labour”. His friend then remarked: “But Jan, have you ever told the Lord that you are farming? Perhaps he thinks you are still a Member of Parliament” I want to conclude with these few words and say that a farmer who really wants to do his duty ought to spend most of his time on his farm or he ought to ensure that there is somebody on the farm to look after his interests.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25—

I do so in order to discuss the following subject—

At the outset I would like to express to you personally my thanks for your having permitted this matter to be discussed by the House as a matter of urgency and of public importance. My colleagues and I are grateful for the opportunity which you have afforded us to bring to the notice of the House the plight in which a number of Coloured bus operators find themselves by reason of the refusal of the Local Road Transportation Board to grant them permission to provide public transport for their own people in predominantly Coloured residential areas.

I am sure that the Government will realize that the dire circumstances in which these Coloured people now find themselves by reason of the unfortunate decision by the Local Road Transportation Board warrants Government intervention with the least possible delay.

Mr. Speaker, citizens of Cape Town were shocked—I use this term advisedly—to read in yesterday’s Cape Times of the fact that Coloured bus operators were now facing financial ruin as a result of the decision of the local board to refuse to allow them to operate in their own areas in the Cape Peninsula. This decision has created a great deal of despondency in the minds of Coloured people. They see in this unfortunate decision an abandonment of the declared policy of the Government to help in every possible way the Coloured people in the establishment and maintenance of their own businesses in their own Coloured areas. I was glad to read a remark made by the Secretary for Transport in which he said that the matter is by no means ended, and it is for that reason that we felt that we should timeously draw the hon. Minister’s attention to this unfortunate situation that has arisen in the Peninsula in the hope that he even at this stage can hold out some hope to these unfortunate people.

If this decision is allowed to stand, the Government cannot blame the Coloured people for coming to the conclusion that the Government is not prepared to implement its policy when vested White interests are concerned. I hope very sincerely that the responsible Minister will in the course of his reply allay the fears that exist in this connection in the minds of the Coloured people.

I should like briefly to tell the House the circumstances which exist in relation to one of these Coloured bus operators. Time does not permit me to deal with more than one example, but the pattern of this unfortunate man’s story, which I want to reveal to the House this afternoon is almost identical with the position of other Coloured men and Coloured-owned companies who are desirous of operating Coloured transport services in their own non-White areas in the Peninsula. The story of the one individual which I want to relate to the House very briefly is that by dint of hard work and savings and borrowing money he managed to acquire a fleet of 11 buses, mostly of a luxury type, and some of them costing as much as R20,000 each. He ventured into the transport business in 1958 in response to an appeal made to him then by a group of responsible Coloured workers employed at a deep-freezing and preserving company situated at Firgrove, approximately 1¼ miles off the national road. At that time no recognized made-up road existed to that factory. This Coloured man became a Coloured entrepreneur in the transport business and was the means of conveying the vast majority of the Coloured workers to that factory from their homes at that time in Athlone to Fir-grove. For this service this Coloured man received not only the approbation of the management of the factory but the appreciation of a very large number of responsible Coloured people. I mention that, Sir, because I am informed that at that time this company was unable to obtain similar services from the Cape Town Tramways. This Coloured man stepped into the breach and helped this factory and the Coloured workers to that extent. In due course this individual received a temporary permit from the local board to operate this service. As time went on he enlarged his fleet of vehicles at the request of the management of the factory, and this was the means of the factory recruiting additional labour to this out of the way place, one and a quarter mile off the national road. On each occasion that this man added a vehicle to his fleet he applied to the Local Transportation Board for the necessary certificate, and to the credit of the board I want to say that on each occasion his application was granted. The service that this Coloured man rendered to the deep-freezing company at Firgrove became very widely known and he was then approached by another factory situated on the national road near the Strand for a similar service because they experienced tremendous difficulties in getting sufficient labour and bringing these Coloured people from their homes in their Coloured residential areas to this factory near the Strand. This man readily agreed to render this additional service and again on a temporary basis received permission from the Transportation Board for two additional vehicles. It soon became imperative for this man to apply for a permanent certificate in respect of the service that he was running to Firgrove factory by reason of the fact that he had by this time invested a large sum of money from his own savings and from borrowings for the purchase of these vehicles and to maintain them. The local board again, quite rightly, agreed to grant a permanent certificate in respect of the transport facilities he was rendering to this Firgrove factory. It soon became apparent to the Tramway Company that this man was making too much headway, and it appears that his application for a permanent certificate was then opposed for the first time by the Tramway Company.

When was that?

In 1960. Later on this Coloured pioneer in public transport applied for a permanent certificate in respect of the service that he was rendering to the Strand factory also, and at that time he was obliged to apply for an extension and a re-routing of the service which was necessitated by reason of the residential development of two important Coloured areas, namely Bonteheuwel and the Bishop Lavis Township, which had come about as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. A tremendous number of Coloured people went to live in these two newly created Coloured areas, and therefore he was obliged to apply for a re-routing of the service to take these people from their new homes to Firgrove and to the Strand factory. The Tramway Company opposed this application most strenuously; they were represented by senior counsel and their legal representative at the Transportation Board hearing urged the board to refuse the application and contended (I want to quote from his reported statement made at the hearing)—

On the other hand this Coloured pioneer also was represented by senior counsel. Mr. Burger, senior counsel, appeared for him and he appealed to the board to allow these Coloured men to run their bus services as they had done since 1958 for their own people in their own areas in accordance with the declared policy of the Government.

To the amazement of everyone the Coloured operator’s applications were refused. But not only did the Transportation Board refuse to grant the new application for a permanent certificate to the Strand, but it also refused the re-routing of the previous permanent certificate that they had granted to this unfortunate man from Bonteheuwel and Bishop Lavis Township to the Firgrove factory. Not even being satisfied with that, at the same time and at the same hearing the local board whilst refusing the Coloured operator’s applications, granted the application to the Tramway Company which came onto the scene for the first time after he had pioneered the route and done all this work, and they were given permission to operate these two services. The application of the Tramway Company was granted and the application of this Coloured pioneer was turned down.

I understand that the reasons given by the board for refusing the Coloured man’s application and granting the application to the Tramway Company was the fact that the Tramway Company was, in their own words, an existing operator. The board appears to have ignored completely the fact that this Coloured pioneer was also an existing operator, and appears to have overlooked completely the public service that he had rendered to his people and to these two factories in establishing this service to Firgrove and to the Strand from these Coloured areas. The point that I want to emphasize, Sir, is that the service that I am referring to relates only to the transfer by public transport of Coloured people from their own places or residence, which in these instances are in proclaimed Coloured areas, to their place of employment. To me this seems an extraordinary attitude. It seems, to say the least of it, a very illogical attitude. The Government policy is that there should be separate development and the Government has from time to time announced in this House and out of the House that the Government will do everything possible to help the Coloured people to develop their own businesses in their own areas. The Prime Minister himself has stated that on several occasions. Surely this is an instance which justifies us in asking the Government to intervene and to help these Coloured bus operators to run their own public transport as long as the Government is satisfied that they are capable of doing so and that these Coloured people are capable of maintaining a sufficiently high standard of service.

When was the application refused?

In October 1963.

The existing ones?

Yes, and these facts were given to us as sworn statements. The refusal in this one case has resulted in this man now being faced with absolute ruination. I feel, and my colleagues share this view, that to refuse to allow the Coloured people to serve their own community in their own areas is absolutely inconsistent with the declared policy of the Government to encourage separate development in the Coloured areas. If the Government is determined to proceed with its policy of separate development, and we know that that is the policy of the Government, there can be no justification for denying the Coloured people the right to develop in every sphere of business in their own areas.

The example which I have quoted is an indication of the ability of a responsible Coloured man to conduct his own public transport business for his own people. Unfortunately in terms of our rules time does not permit me to deal with other examples, but this is a pattern of several applications that have been turned down in recent months. I venture to suggest that this individual whose case I have cited, and which the hon. Minister can inquire into, is entitled to receive every encouragement from the Government, and I appeal to the hon. Minister to allow this man and other Coloured bus operators to operate such services. They should receive sympathetic consideration from the Department and from the Government.

I want briefly to refer to a statement made by Mr. Greyling, the General Manager of the Coloured Development Corporation yesterday when this news broke on the City of Cape Town. He said that whilst he did not want to comment on the decisions of the Local Road Transportation Board, he wanted to say that it was the policy and the aim of the Corporation to encourage and help Coloured businessmen to become established in Coloured areas. This would apply to transport as well as any other type of business. The case I have cited here this afternoon is a clear indication of an instance where a Coloured man is entitled to receive, and I hope the hon. Minister will give him that hope, the Government’s support. I commend this matter to the hon. Minister for his favourable attention.

I cannot help but differ from the hon. member who has just sat down as far as certain facts he has advanced are concerned, but before doing so I want to say that the reason for the agitation which started a few days ago was none other than the hostile feeling towards the Government which is to be found partly with the English Press and partly with those people who took part in that agitation.

I only have a few minutes at my disposal and I should like to give the House a few facts so that hon. members can consider them for themselves. In the first place those things happened in November last year, and last week for the first time there was a brief report in the Press about the proceedings last year in November.

What does that matter?

Why should it only appear three months later? No, they suddenly thought this was a wonderful possibility for them to make political capital out of this matter. After that brief report in the Argus last week Cape Town gave great publicity to it, three months after the happenings last year. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the refusal of the certificate. That fervent plea made by Adv. Burger last year was not in connection with those certificates, but in connection with the applications to serve routes which were already served. That is the position. Great play is made of the fact that it is Government policy that the Coloureds should serve themselves. It is Government policy that the Coloureds should serve themselves as far as possible but it is also Government policy that we should have a sound transport system and that there should be coordination in our transport system. What hon. members are pleading for is that our transport system should be disrupted.

Eleven luxury buses.

I did not interrupt the hon. member when he spoke. What the hon. member is pleading for is that our entire transport system should be disrupted.

That is not true.

It is essential and it is Government policy that our transport system should be sound because that is essential in every country.

A monopoly!

No, no monopolies. That is why the Transportation Act clearly makes provision, in Section 13 (3), that where there is an existing service a new service should not be allowed to oust it. But it goes further and in Section 3bis provision is made that when the Road Transportation Board consider such an application they must ascertain whether there is an existing service already with which the services of the new application can be co-ordinated, and if they can be co-ordinated with the existing service, the existing company or person must be given an opportunity to make application. It is because it is essential for us to have a co-ordinated service in South Africa.

The facts of the hon. member were not correct. What happened? In November last year when those persons applied for permission to serve certain routes in the Coloured area … [Interjections.] Hon. members do not want to give me a chance; they do not want to hear the truth. When they applied Advocate Burger acted for them. The hon. member has also referred to that.

You are all mixed up.

I am afraid hon. members do not know what they are talking about. That gave rise to it and that is why those people say they have buses which they cannot use. But what is the result of that and that is what hon. members are pleading for. They want the Road Transportation Board, which acted correctly, in terms of the law, and in accordance with Government policy, to grant permission left and right to Coloureds wherever services are required in a Coloured area. What will be the result of that? Existing services that have given good service for over 100 years will be ousted. Will that not be the inevitable result? If hon. members were to argue that they should be permitted on routes where nobody else operated …

That is what happened here.

No, that is not correct. That would have been a totally different matter. That is why no value can be attached to the arguments of hon. members opposite. [Time limit.]

I presume that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) as a Member of Parliament and a lawyer is aware of the provisions of the Motor-Carrier Transportation Act. If he is, he probably knows that local road transportation boards and the National Transport Commission are statutory bodies and that they have a large measure of autonomy. He also probably realizes that it would be most improper for the Minister to whom there is no appeal for any decision of the National Transport Commission to give instructions to these boards. The hon. member is also perfectly well aware of the fact that the National Transport Commission and the local road transportation boards must act in terms of the provisions of this Act, and that is what they have done.

No, they have not.

Of course they have. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) has already explained to the hon. member …

He dealt with the wrong case.

I am not concerned about one particular individual case, I am concerned about the policy of the boards and the actions of the boards …

May I ask you a question?

I cannot answer questions now because I have only go ten minutes. The hon. member can raise the matter again during the Budget debate. The hon. member for Ceres explained to those hon. members that the local road transport boards and the National Transport Commission must act in terms of Section 13 (3), in other words, they must see to it that existing services are protected. It is the policy of the boards, as laid down in the Act, and I am responsible for the Act, that in terms of Section 13 (2) they must take into consideration the race of the operator based on the race of the passengers being conveyed in that vehicle, but that is qualified by sub-section (3). I do not know about this particular case, but if the hon. member wanted to deal with a particular case, why did he not inform me aforetime—then I could have got the information for him. This is supposed to be a debate on general merits and general matters, not about a particular individual who has a grievance. That is not the purpose of this debate. The facts of the matter are that the local road transportation board must act in terms of Section 13 (2), as qualified by sub-section (3), and these existing services are protected, and they are bound to take that into consideration before they issue any transport certificates. The facts are these: Two companies applied for motor-carrier certificates, and I will give the names: The one was the Citizen Transport Passenger Services, Chilwan & Petersen, in respect of 22 routes. I have the schedule of the routes here, and those routes are not confined to Coloured areas; they run through Coloured areas and European areas. The Peninsula Passenger Transport Services, Kiewiets and Munnik, applied in respect of routes between Athlone and Bonteheuwel and Athlone and Mission Station by means of 16 buses. These applications were opposed by the Cape Electric Tramways, the City Tramways Company, Golden Arrow Bus Services Ltd., Mamre Transport Ltd., Nyanga Passenger Transport Ltd., and Simonstown Bus Services (Pty.), Ltd. They were opposed and the local transportation board had to take into consideration the provision of Section 13 (3), because in accordance with that particular section these companies can claim a certain measure of protection. On that basis they had to refuse the applications. But these persons had the right to appeal to the National Transport Commission, which they did not do. Why did they not appeal? They submitted no appeal. In the one particular case the application by Chilwan for the conveyance of non-White factory workers from Elsies River to Tyger Valley areas to Firgrove was withdrawn by the applicant before consideration by the local board. The hon. member should get his information right. He should get his facts right.

That is not the instance that I quoted.

It must be one of these. That is all I know of. These individuals have been receiving temporary permits and receiving permits for specific purposes and for the conveyance of specific groups over a period of years.

Now those have all been withdrawn.

They have not all been withdrawn. Chilwan had seven certificates for 1963. Of these, five certificates have been renewed and two have been held in abeyance pending submission of certificates of fitness. If he acquired additional buses as stated by the Cape Times, then they were bought in spite of the fact that he holds no certificates authorizing the operation of these vehicles. Let me say this, namely that it is the policy of the Government—and I repeat this—that as far as possible non-Europeans should have the opportunity of serving their own people. I do not know whether the hon. member or any other hon. members want existing operators who have been operating over certain routes for years and given excellent service to be put out of business merely for the purpose of allowing a new Coloured applicant to introduce a bus service to convey his own people. [Interjections.] I said these are new services. I am talking about the 22 routes in respect of which applications have been made for entirely new services.

Bonteheuwel was a new township.

I do not know about that one particular case. If the hon. member had given me the information before the start of this debate I would have had that information. I am dealing with the two Coloured applicants; 22 routes in the case of one and a certain number of routes in the case of the other. I shall get the information in regard to that particular case which the hon. member mentioned. But what I do not want to be done is to make general statements that the Government is not implementing its policy of separate development because that is not true. We do it in a sensible way. We assist the Coloured people more than they have ever been assisted in the past.

When it suits the White people.

The hon. member does not know what she is talking about. She is colour blind. She always sees colour in everything. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must contain herself.

She finds it very difficult to contain herself under all circumstances. That is the policy of the Government and it has always been implemented. But I repeat again that these are autonomous bodies. There is no appeal to the Minister. The Minister lays down a general policy in this Act. I am always prepared to make investigation and inquire into any case of hardship that might arise.

The hon. Minister dealt with cases not dealt with by the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member for Peninsula made it perfectly clear that he was dealing with one case. We maintain that this man who had this right to convey Coloured people from the factory at Firgrove for which he had a permanent certificate and who applied for a permanent certificate to convey them to the Strand, was in fact the man who gave the services as the hon. Minister has just said. But the fact is that he gave the services. He was the first one to provide the services and he is out of business. The Tramway Company which has never been there has now got the business.

If your facts are right the wrong action was taken by the board. Give me the facts.

I realize that the Minister will help me. He has helped me before. We realize that the hon. Minister is honest enough and has been very kind to help us. There is another very important aspect in this matter. Chilwan not only carried these people. He recruited labour for the factory and brought them on his buses. The factory knew that it could depend upon the service of this man to recruit the labour for the factory and he recruited them each day. To-day the service of recruiting labour has been lost to these factories because the Tramway Company refuses to recruit labour. A European man from the factory has to go around to the Coloured areas to try to get these people to work for them. It has not only been unfortunate that Mr. Chilwan lost his right to carry on by not having his application for rerouting granted but the factories are suffering from the labour point of view in that many Coloured people who were getting employment may not get the employment. You see the repercussions, Mr. Speaker, of the refusal to grant this man his application for the rerouting which has come about not for any other reason but the Government’s policy of group areas where they shift the population from one area to the other. It became imperative for him to have a rerouting not only for the service of carrying the passengers but for the service of recruiting labour for the important canning factories.

Discussion having continued for half an hour.