May I, with the leave of the House, make a statement in regard to the business of the House: After disposing of the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs to-day, we shall proceed with the Vote of the Minister of the Interior and his Mines Vote. It is probable that the General Law Amendment Bill will be discussed on Monday. We shall then continue with the Vote of the Minister of the Interior and his further Votes, and then probably with the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I undertook to give, as far as possible, a list of the legislation which will still be submitted this Session. The Minister of External Affairs has a Bill with regard to stand-still legislation. The Minister of Finance has the Building Societies Amendment Bill and the Unit Trust Control Amendment Bill and the Finance Bill. The Minister of Transport has the Railways and Harbours Act Amendment Bill, his Additional Estimates, and his Railway Construction Bill. The Minister of Justice has the liquor Amendment Bill. The Minister of Pensions has the War Special Pensions Amendment Bill, the Pensions Laws Amendment Bill, the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Amendment Bill, the Welfare Organizations Amendment Bill, the Pensions Supplementary Bill and the University of Cape Town Amendment Bill. The Minister of the Interior has an Aliens Amendment Bill, and Admission of Persons to the Union Amendment Bill, the South African Citizenship Amendment Bill, the Public Holidays Amendment Bill, the Newspaper Amendment Bill and the Undesirable Publications Bill, of which the first reading only will be taken. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has a Bill to provide for the participation of urban Bantu in the management of urban residental areas, and a general amendment Bill on Bantu laws. The Minister of Economic Affairs has the Iron and Steel Industry Amendment Bill. The Minister of Health has the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Amendment Bill, and the Post-Mortem Examinations and the Removal of Human Tissue Amendment Bill. Then I also have a small Deeds Registries Amendment Bill.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour. Sir, two very important statements were made yesterday by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs that hardly indicated any green light to boom conditions. I will come to those statements later in what I have to say, because I want to put certain of the events of the year that has passed into some kind of sequence Since we last discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister, the South African economic system has been subject to a series of economic shocks, mainly psychological in impact, but none the less powerful. Last year, after the session, the concern of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was to bring about a new equilibrium following the shock upon the emergency events that are associated with the names Langa and Sharpeville, and he said in a speech at about that time that it was only a matter of dislocation for a few days and in a few centres, disregarding the fact that that was a fundamentally superficial reading of what was a situation that shocked the whole community. The country came well out of it on the surface. That was followed by a tendency overseas to boycotts, and the economy again, to some extent, weathered that difficulty, but none the less to say that those events were of no consequence was to disregard the facts. Related to that we had the great and psychological shock to the economy of the loss of Commonwealth membership. With regard to that, hon. members on that side of the House are very concerned to say that the situation has changed since the Ottawa Agreement of 1932 and that imperial preferences and matters of that kind do not have the power and the force that they had at the time of the Ottawa Agreement, and I am ready to concede that. There are many other unilateral and bilateral agreements and agreements such as G.A.T.T. which have modified all these things, apart from which the situation of the most powerful economic nation of the Commonwealth have also altered in relation to European economic affiliation. None the less, to suppose that our situation will remain the same after the existing stand-still arrangement comes to an end would be to ignore the facts. The Minister has not ignored those facts, and he has taken what steps he can in the way of dispatching trade missions, in the way of personally visiting centres overseas, particularly in Europe, and I am sure this House will commend him for the energy he has applied in these spheres. But I want to say to the hon. the Minister that however hard he and his officers may work, the best that he can do in that regard will be a palliative unless the real cause of the decay in confidence has been removed. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), after giving an able economic analysis of certain aspects of the situation, pointed to the crux of the difficulty of lack of confidence in the Union of South Africa. Before I begin to agree with that central point which was the point of racial policy, I want to distinguish between those matters which lie outside our control and those which lie inside our control. In an interview given to the Transvaler during the last year, the hon. the Minister is reported to have said a number of important things; inter alia, he said that the decay in confidence in the Union was part of the pattern resulting from events on the African Continent as a whole, that in so far as overseas investors began to lack confidence in our country, it was the result of the revolutionary changes that were taking place on the Continent of Africa, and that, therefore, that was something which this Government, in effect, could not influence. While conceding that that is a factor in the situation, I want to suggest to this House that the main factor in the lack of overseas confidence in the South African situation is not merely the revolutionary changes that are taking place in Africa, which do have this effect, but the combination of a policy of rigidity in this country against those changing events. That is the basis of the lack of confidence. People overseas do not believe that a rigid formula can work any more in relation to a situation which can be described, without overstressing that word, as revolutionary in speed. Now, what has the Government’s reply been to the events that I first mentioned—the shock that we took under the emergency last year? What was their reaction in terms of policy for the outside world to look at? The hon. the Minister, in the interview to which I have referred, said that one of the big things in favour of South Africa was its stable Government. I think one must distinguish between a stable government and a determined government. We saw a determined government in the Argentine under Peron and we saw a determined government in Cuba under Batista, but anyone who described those as fundamentally stable governments would have been proved false by subsequent events. The hon. the Minister in that same address was reported as having described his policy as a progressive conservative policy. Those words, I think, are good words, particularly the first one. But to imagine that the outside world would describe the policy of this Government either in relation to economics or in relation to anything else as progressive-conservative in its application, is to close one’s eyes to the facts. The bulk of the world would describe the policy of this Government as a reactionary retrogressive policy. The only reply that the Government gave at that time in the economic field—and there were many voices raised to say that some of the fundamental causes of the troubles last year were economic—was that they would now give consideration to raising the level of non-European wages. They did suggest that there would be a certain alleviation in the administration of pass laws and so forth, and they said that they would press ahead with the development of border industries.

In passing, I would like to deal for a moment with that concept of border industries. When the hon. the Minister was overseas, he was reported in our Press as having said in an interview when the word “Bantustan” was raised, “How we hate that word!” He said, “What we are dealing with is decentralization”. If that be true, then it means a movement of industry largely on an economic basis, otherwise it means nothing at all if the process is merely one of decentralization, and so far as this Government has proceeded with its Economic Advisory Council, this is the tendency of what the Government proposes in regard to border industries; in other words, an attempt to some extent to alleviate the problem of migratory labour, an attempt to some extent to alleviate the high cost of transport, etc., of Native labour in the big urban areas, an attempt to alleviate some of the worst social evils that flow from that. In so far as it is an uneconomic process, in so far as it does not create a dual economy, nobody would oppose such a process, but if that is all it is, where are the opportunities for the African technicians going to arise in this border industry development? Where are we going to have that lack of discrimination which the Government says is its policy so far as the reserves and the border reserves are concerned? We see this border development as simply a palliative in this regard and no real solution to the fundamental problem which is the fundamental problem of Africa.

What is that?

The fundamental problem of Africa in the economic field can be summed up in one word: The consequences of urbanization. The hon. the Minister himself has said that the White man, the White man in South Africa in particular, must prove to the whole continent that his technology, his wisdom, his know-how, his discipline if you like, is of great value to the continent. That technology operates in the urban or the industrial centres wherever they may be, on the borders of the reserves or otherwise, and the same problem is faced by every state in Africa which is following the policy that we fundamentally follow, which is that the only way to full employment is an expanding economy; the only way to develop your economy is export. In other words, you can say that the general picture of Africa, the aim of every state, whether the state be Black or whether it be Black or White or predominantly White in control, is to export or bust, so to speak. That same thing was evident in the discussion we had the other day on the Rhodesian trade agreement, where it is the fact that both we and the Federation see our salvation that way that causes the difficulty in coming to an agreement If this be true, the central core of the economic problem and of the racial problem lies in the word “urbanization”, and however successfully you may fight against the poverty in the reserves and improved conditions, no amount of satisfactory progress there will solve the other problem unless you are ready to say “We abandon Western technology; in a fight for survival we do not see it that way; we would rather go back to a simpler life on a lower standard of living than expand the economy”. That would be a logical line of thought. But the line of thought of the Nationalist Party is that it wants to expand the economy on the basis of the partnership of White capital and White know-how and Black labour and to deny the consequences of that inevitable integration This is what the outside world looks at and this is why the outside world tends to have a lack of confidence in our future. The answer that the hon. the Prime Minister gave to this was on the lines of the remarks of the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) who said “Look at Rhodesia; they have partnership; does that solve the problem of confidence so far as they are concerned?” The Prime Minister said that it would be easy to buy prosperity and temporary peace and happiness on the basis of sacrificing certain things that he considered should not be sacrificed. I do not agree with the Prime Minister; it would not be easy. Nothing is going to be easy in South Africa from now on, and to turn from a policy of race discrimination gradually to a policy of non-discrimination, however it might ease certain burdens, would not be an easy thing. What I wish to suggest to-day is that it is the only policy ultimately that we can follow if we are not to pay a price almost beyond our means to pay. Let me turn for a moment to the statements that were made yesterday by the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. It is a sad day for South Africa when the Minister of Finance has to get up in this House and virtually say: “I am giving an assurance to the outside world; I am only taking gradual steps at the moment but I am giving the assurance to the outside world that we will take the strongest measures to prevent danger to the South African rand. That is virtually what the Minister of Finance was saying to the outside world yesterday. It was inevitable that he might have to do this but was this a way to increase confidence internally, however much this may have a good effect on the outside world? To this extent I agree with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. In one of the statements during the recess to which I have referred, he said that one of the things about South Africa is that we have always honoured our obligations, that we have always paid our debts. That is true and it is something of which we can be proud. And we have always paid them in a non-depreciated currency, and for that reason I too would agree with the strongest measures if a situation arises where a unilateral devaluation had to be considered. My only reason for mentioning it—the last thing I want to talk is depression—is the fact that the Minister of Finance in a statement yesterday had to deny rumours that there was any intention of any unilateral devaluation of our currency. That was what it amounted to.

If he did not deny it it might have been thought that there was something in the rumours.

The situation I am trying to outline is a situation and an atmosphere in which it becomes necessary for our Minister of Finance to do these things.

They had to deny such rumours in America and England and elsewhere too.

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) can make an economic contribution to this debate and those who value it can listen. I am concerned here not to make political capital out of an existing situation; I am concerned here to face the facts of the South African situation, the deplorable facts that exist to-day, and I have been trying to outline those circumstances over which we have no control and those circumstances over which we may have control. There are obviously many circumstances over which we have control where we might act. The hon. member for Bellville said: “Look at Canada, they import capital and look at their unemployment figures. Look at Australia; they have no race problem, but they still have difficulty in importing capital.” I do not wish to be drawn into an analysis of the differences between the Australian, the Canadian and our situation. I might equally say to the hon. member, “Look at Indonesia, or look at Tristan de Cunha.” I am concerned with the actual situation in South Africa and there is too much of a tendency on the Government side when a South African problem is before us to say “Look how much worse off they are in this or that state; look at their difficulties there”. I am concerned with what is happening here, and what is happening here is not a happy thing for the country. These measures that the Minister has proposed including the import control measures of the Minister of Economic Affairs will, I hope, work as stopgaps to the extent that those gentlemen hope, because the last thing I wish to see is a steadily increasing drain on our reserves at the rate at which it is going on. But we must remember that those things are but stop-gaps; that import control never was a solution to a problem; it was simply a kind of barricade that you put up temporarily to stop something rather than something that cures the trouble behind the barricade, and the same thing applies to the financial situation. In this position, where the hon. member for Bellville does admit that he would like a certain amount of capital from abroad but at the same time belittles the advantage of outside capital as a curative measure, where the Government, while slowly coming round to an appreciation of the value of immigration where it imports skilled know-how, South Africa none the less have to face a situation where for various reasons—some of them either outside our control, and some inside our control—outside capital was never more necessary. This is a time when the Government has to deal with an increasing amount of what I will call, from a productive point of view, “dead work.” By that I mean expenditure that is not immediately productive, but has to be undertaken for long-term reasons, for example the Defence Vote that is obviously going to increase very considerably is hardly a productive line of expenditure though it may be a very necessary line of expenditure. The Minister is to proceed with his decentralization plan for border industries and that will mean, unless those industries automatically site themselves there for economic reasons, which is improbable, a certain amount of inducement of capital expenditure there. The Government is proceeding with its plans for the development of the reserves. In saying these things I am not against them per se; I am for the conquest of poverty wherever it may be found. What I am emphasizing is that the choice between capital and consumer goods is going to be weighted on the side of capital goods at a time when capital goods are going to be hard for us to find from the outside world. In other words, South Africa will have to save even more strenuously, in spite of its good record of saving in the past. The very measures that the Minister proposes with regard to import control may be a good stopgap but in effect they are an immediate lowering of the national income, like any other protective measure. These measures have two phases—that which tends to save foreign exchange and that which will act in effect as a protection to certain South African industries. And when you protect, though the long-term aim may be good, the immediate effect is a slight or greater diminution of the total national income, since you are diverting resources from activities where economics have determined that we are getting the best returns, to activities where in your interests you sacrifice a certain amount of economic principle.

There is another matter that I wish to deal with in the course of these remarks and it is this. During this year of succeeding psychological shock, what has been the reaction of the Government to those best qualified to speak in these matters? What has been the reaction of the Government to the leaders of commerce and industry? During the time that this Government has held office I think no group of men have tried harder to give this Government a chance than the leaders of commerce and industry During the early stages of this Government’s tenure of office, when misgivings were expressed by those who thought politically rather than economically, the leaders of commerce and industry said “give them a chance and so long as our world works smoothly, which is the essential world for the maintenance of South Africa, we are not going to protest until we see that what you predict is true”, That was the situation of commerce and industry for many years. Occasionally they offered mild criticism of this or that policy in the purely economic field when the Government was following a stop-gap policy, when it introduced a credit squeeze here and a measure of import control there. But after the events of last year, commerce was so concerned, not merely for its profits, as the hon. member for Jeppes has pointed out, but for the whole economic structure that they became more vocal in criticism than ever before. I do not say that those men hold the whole truth in their hands, but they do know something about the world in which they work, and it was inevitable in a country that is dominated by political rather than economic thought (because that is true of South Africa to-day) that some of their ideas which followed from economic considerations would come into conflict with the political ideas of the Government. And what is the answer? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science virtually told commerce and industry to keep their noses out of business which was not theirs. The Prime Minister said that commerce and industry can be disregarded, that they have become the mouthpiece of the Progressive Party.

Quite true.

Sir, when agriculture speaks in this House, and it speaks very valuably in this House, and it speaks in a way that influences political decisions, do members on this side of the House get up and say to the leaders of agriculture “Keep your nose out of politics”?

Yes, they said it to Moolman.

But they do not talk politics.

The hon. member say that they do not talk politics. The hon. member must permit me to differ from him on the definition of what is politics and what is not in an economic society. The leaders of commerce and industry followed a certain trend of economic thought and it led to certain conclusions which affected the political set-up, and if they point that out to the Government then it is talking politics.

I want to say to this Minister that I do not think he has ever taken the line that certain other Ministers have taken—neither he nor the Minister of Finance—but he and the Minister of Finance, in a country that is dominated by political ideas rather than a balance between political, economic, aesthetic and spiritual ideas, so to speak, have never taken this line, and are in a difficult position. They are the men who have to try to square the circle. They are the men who have to take the economic consequences of policies that interfere in the economic sphere, and in that regard both the Minister and the Minister of Finance have my sympathies. What they are doing in certain respects is to attempt to do the impossible. I said that I hoped that these measures taken would temporarily hold the situation and improve it, but if the Minister or anybody else in this House believes that measures such as raising the bank rate will really stop the drain on resources that is taking place, will really abolish the condition that exists in South Africa at the moment—and the core of that condition is that we still have a fine economic machine which is still working, the wheels of which are still turning; it is still a machine that will withstand tremendous shock, and I would say this that few economic machines in a country the size of ours would have withstood the shocks that we have had the last year without worse effects than we see present, but the difficulty at the moment is that the men who are to run that machine and expand its activity and build new machines, are beginning to come to a position where they are wondering whether they have the confidence to do that. I am speaking of the internal position now rather than the position of the external investor. When you get that situation, in the world situation that we have at the present time, you get a very serious state of affairs, because ultimately the thing on which credit rests, on which economics rests, is fundamentally a belief that expansion must take place and the thing is to get on the band wagon while it is taking place. The hon. member for Jeppes has spoken of stagnation. I think that word is too strong. We have not quite reached the position of stagnation because stagnation is the next step to deterioration. But I think the Minister will concede that we are in a position where the expansion is not taking place at the rate at which it should take place. Fundamentally there is only one thing that can improve the situation—and now I am going to talk politics because this is where politics bears on economics—and that is a belief that we can really create a stable Government here, a Government where the Minister of Defence will not have to be overworked passing Bills and organizing defence units …

I am not overworked.

… a situation where we can send the Minister of Defence on a holiday and the chief of police can sit back and deal with problems less serious than those with which he has to deal at the present moment, and that is a stable Government which is based on the consent of the bulk of the people, a Government which has with it the goodwill not merely of those who control the visible power in the country but those who control the ultimate power, the men who do the dirty work in the country.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) can also speak on economics and if he speaks on the same level that he speaks on external affairs, I think this House will be just as wise when he sits down as when he started. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) dragged in many things, and it is difficult to follow him in all his peregrinations. He blames himself for talking politics but then warns me that he is now going to talk politics, and then I hear nothing.

I would like to deal with something else, but before doing so I just want to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs whether he will please give us information in regard to the tariff policy the Government intends following in respect of other countries who are still in the Commonwealth, in view of the fact that we are now or will shortly be out of the Commonwealth. He will remember that a little while ago he made a statement and told the exporters that the Government would compensate them for any losses they might suffer as the result of a change in the tariffs, and I still do not know how this thing works, but we as exporters will be glad to ascertain what the Government envisages in this regard.

Now I come back to the hon. member for Musgrave, who described the position here as being due to our inability to sell the Government’s policy abroad. Let me say this: It is not the inability to do so, but there is a great unwillingness on the part of the people who do the selling, apart from the Government, and that is one of the reasons why there is this lack of confidence. The analysis of the hon. member for Musgrave and that of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), in the Press, and of the Opposition in general is quite correct, namely that the position is due to a lack of confidence. That is so, and it is easy to state the position. But where the Opposition goes wrong is in its analysis of the reasons for that lack of confidence. He ascribes the lack of confidencee to what he calls the Government’s racial policy, and they blame everything on that policy, the Progressive Party as well as the official Opposition. They blame that policy for being the cause of the lack of confidence. We had the same sort of thing on the Prime Minister’s Vote and the Vote of the Minister of External Affairs, and now we have the same note here, just with other variations of it, like a bad musician. The basic note is that it is the Government’s racial policy which is the reason for the lack of confidence, but nothing is further from the truth than that. The truth is that the people in Europe—which I prefer to describe as the West—that Western Europe has no confidence in the West in Africa. That is the position, and everything that happens in Africa is ascribed to the inability of the West to maintain itself in Africa: The happenings in Algeria, the incidents during the past year in the Congo, in Northern Rhodesia, in Angola, in Southern Rhodesia, our leaving the Commonwealth, the various boycotts against the Union—all these things are ascribed to the inability of the White people to maintain themselves in Africa. That is the reason for the lack of confidence. In regard to this position, both the official Opposition and the Progressive Party are not free of guilt. Their role in this is not a minor one. Because what do they do? Every incident, every happening, every loud-mouthed speech of somebody who is still adolescent, of everybody who is drunk with his own importance which he suddenly gained because the world took notice of him, all these things are blazoned out and are used to cause a crisis in our country. That is done for one reason only, that they think that the Government will land in trouble and that there will then again be a position like the one we had when Tielman Roos re-entered politics. At that time the hon. member for Musgrave was still studying theology, he does not know about it, but he thinks that he will again have an opportunity such as the one there was in 1932 when a Coalition Government was formed. The whole object of the Opposition is to achieve that. Just the other day there were suggestions in quite influential circles in regard to a coalition. Why? I am not saying that the Progressive Party suggested it, but they hoped then to be able to fish in troubled waters, and the same applies to the official Opposition. But they do not realize that it is an unpatriotic deed to besmirch South Africa and to cause economic trouble. But they will even do what is unpatriotic in order to cause a crisis in the hope that they will then succeed by some means or other in obtaining a share in the Government, if they cannot take over the Government entirely. But the lessons to be learnt in the Union of South Africa at the moment and which they will learn to an increasing extent in the republic are not learnt by them, viz. that a party which concentrates on doing unpatriotic things is doomed. The results in Swellendam prove that, the result in Natal proved it, the results in Hospital perhaps prove it, the results in Bethal-Middelburg in the Transvaal prove it, and the results in South West prove that they are on the down-grade and will simply disappear as an important factor. But do not think that they learn anything from that. They learn nothing from it. They simply go out of their way to be even more unpatriotic. I would like to tell them: Seeing that we find ourselves in this economic position (which I do not want to describe as a crisis, because it is not), they can make a very large contribution if they would just learn something and try to view the problems of South Africa from the patriotic standpoint and to re-orientate themselves in this new period we are entering. If they sit down and ask themselves what they should do to ensure that South Africa enjoys the great prosperity to which it is entitled, they can make a contribution, but as I see it, the time will come when there will be only Nationalists in this House, unless the Opposition tries to play its role as an Opposition. It is necessary for parliamentary Government to have an Opposition which thinks constructively, but at the moment the Opposition is so negative and so unpatriotic that they do not even run the risk of forming the alternative Government. They are in the position of any group in Parliament which does not run the risk of being called upon to bear the responsibilities, and they are becoming more irresponsible by the day.

Order! The hon. member should come nearer to the Vote

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling. I am stating the proposition that the lack of confidence which exists at the moment is not due to the reasons given all the time by the Opposition, but to other reasons of which we are the victims, and I want to accuse the Opposition of contributing to explaining these facts in such a way that it is to our detriment. [Time limit.]

I don’t want to follow along the deviation from the Vote as the hon. member did who has just now resumed his seat, except to say to him that patriotism is not the closed preserve of the Nationalist Party. We certainly have proceeded quite a long way on the road to reality when the hon. member who has just sat down recognizes that our main economic problems are due to the lack of confidence that exists in the Western world.

But, Sir, when time ran out on me last evening, I had referred to a Press announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 15 August 1960, about the introduction of certain penal legislation with retrospective effect during the current Session of Parliament. I described that announcement as a threat which was adversely affecting business commitments and trade relations in Africa, particularly in Ghana, by South African firms. I quoted a specific instance where this threat was having a deleterious effect on trade relations. I said that I knew of at least one international trading concern which had its headquarters for Africa in the Union which was being hampered in its trade associations. It is particularly being hampered in its trade associations since the South African personnel in its employment cannot be used to maintain its necessary trade contacts. This, I say, must be viewed as a serious matter. Threats of penal legislation is always a serious matter, but threats of penal legislation with restropective effect is a matter of very great public interest. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will tell this House and will tell the country what the present intentions of the Government are in regard to this matter. To leave the business world in the present state of uncertainty and to leave the employee and the private individuals in suspense in this way is nothing but real tyranny. As far as I can remember no announcement was made by the Leader of the House in the list that he gave this morning in regard to proposed legislation. As far as I can recollect this item was not mentioned. But that is purely a negative aspect of the matter and I think the hon. the Minister who is concerned primarily in the matters which I am discussing to-day, should take up a positive stand and should inform this House precisely whether it is intended to go on with this legislation or not. Sir, I am not asking for such legislation. I am trying to avoid it. But I am concerned about the matter because of the tyrannical abuse of executive power in regard to the matter and because of the stagnation which the hon. the member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronie) has referred to and which is only aggravated by an announcement of this nature. Now, Sir, last evening the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) became very sensitive and touchy because I had asked certain questions in regard to the three high-level trade missions which are abroad. Why he should have been so touchy about it is still a puzzle to me. I certainly hope that the hon. the Minister will deal with the matter in a more practical and objective way and will give us the information in the spirit in which the question was put to him.

I do not know why the hon. member is so concerned about Ghana. Does he now know that Ghana decided a long time ago to boycott us?

I am concerned about South Africa.

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not concerned about South Africa; he is concerned about a few people who do not know what patriotism is and who are prepared to make treacherous oaths in a foreign country. That is what he is concerned about. Does the hon. member not know that shortly after that incident Ghana announced that they were no longer going to enforce that oath at their airports? I am not saying whether legislation will or will not be introduced, but the fact remains that South Africans are landing on Ghanaian airports today without having to make a statement, and the hon. member should know that because this announcement was made months ago.

During this debate we have had two half-hour speeches, one by a United Party member, and one by a Progressive Party member, and both hon. members have admitted that South Africa is in a very strong economic position, and that fundamentally our economy is sound. The hon. member for Musgrave has gone so far as to say that there are few countries which could have withstood the shocks which South Africa has withstood and which she is still withstanding and still be in as good a position after those shocks as South Africa. I need therefore not tell the House that our country is economically sound. Even the Opposition admits that. But I now want to put a question to hon. members. They have raised a matter which basically has nothing to do with this debate, that is to say they have said that South Africa’s racial policy should be changed so that we can make more money and so that we can be more prosperous economically. This is what they are asking. We know what object the Progressive Party are aiming at; they will move towards the establishment of a non-White government in South Africa if they can get into power in this country. I now want to ask the United Party why they too are not honest and say that they have the same object? Because it is quite clear to me that here we have two parties who consider financial matters to be far more important than the preservation of White civilization here on the southern tip of Africa. If that is not so, I cannot see how they can adopt the standpoint which they are adopting.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) discussed this matter last night and his whole speech dealt with the problem of race relations and the fact that those relations must be changed. All the other points he made were merely mentioned incidentally. I now want to ask hon. members whether they can blame the people for rejecting all of them? They have lost one by-election after the other and on every occasion they have suffered a bigger defeat than before, and even when they have opposed one another, as happened at the Hospital by-election the day before yesterday, it was clear that even when they oppose one another at the polling booths, they cannot arouse any enthusiasm amongst their own supporters. It seems to me that this was a fight like that between the late Noah’s cats in the ark; it was more courting than fighting. I want to tell hon. members, and we have often said so in the past, that the National Party is determined to preserve White civilization in South Africa and £. s. d. will not cause us to deviate from our policy. Consequently when they discuss economic matters, they must accept that that part of our policy is not under discussion. That part of our policy is a matter which falls under other Departments and is part of the Government’s overall policy and as far as we are concerned is inviolate.

I am very pleased about the two announcements which the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs made yesterday. I have said before in this House, and I want to repeat it, that I think that our reserves are in a strong position. As far as I am concerned reserves totalling R160,000,000 are still sufficient to allow us a fairly wide margin in respect of our foreign trade. Even R100,000,000 is sufficient. My standpoint is: What is the point in having reserves if we do not use them? But nevertheless it is better to make timeous provision for keeping our reserves in a strong position and we therefore welcome the announcements which were made here yesterday. Seeing that the Government is taking timeous action, it is quite clear that the business community in South Africa will be in no doubt whether the Government is in earnest as regards protecting our foreign exchange position. I just want to say a few words more particularly about the one announcement which the Minister of Economic Affairs has made. The stricter import control which he has introduced has the laudable characteristic in particular that it is based on South Africa’s industrial development. We can develop to a far greater extent in South Africa in the industrial sphere than we have already done if we can only cultivate the attitude amongst the public that the South African product is just as good as the imported product, but that attitude is not found at all in certain quarters in South Africa. During the Buy South African Campaign one found on walking down Adderley Street that all the shop windows carried the advertisement: “Imported from Britain” or imported from some other country. That is the mentality which we still find in our business community and amongst many of our consumers, and we must try to eradicate that mentality.

As regards the announcement the hon. the Minister has made regarding motor vehicles, the House will remember that various hon. members have urged in this House on previous occasions that we should develop a motor industry in this country which will manufacture cars from the raw materials stage onwards. [Quorum.] But if this is to be done, we cannot have 70 different motor cars and 125 different types of tractors in South Africa. Then we must standardize and have a few types of each. Then we can build up a large industry which will produce both these types of vehicles, and we will probably be able to save, let us say, R150,000,000 in foreign exchange annually once this industry is established. But as regards the Minister’s announcement I am afraid of one thing, namely his statement that firms will be allotted import permits on the basis of the extent to which they use South African products. The more they use South African parts, the more they will be able to import. I am not certain whether that only relates to standardized products which are produced in this country for use in all models, or whether this relates to specialized products for use in respect of each different type of car. Because if it relates to specialized articles, to each type with its own parts, then there are 30 or 40 different types of these various spare parts and we shall be creating a vested interest so that we shall have to continue importing or producing this great variety of cars. This may frustrate the eventual establishment of a motor industry which will manufacture cars from the raw material stage onwards. The same applies to tractors. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this matter and to tell us whether the intention is that these factories which produce parts in South Africa will only produce standardized articles which can be used on the various car models or whether they will produce different types for each model. [Time limit.]

It is significant that after the country received a fairly serious shock yesterday as a result of the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, we have had to struggle this morning even to get a quorum together. It seems to me that these people of mine have now become so accustomed to shocks that they are absolutely shockproof and nothing can influence them any longer. There was a time when I also played some part in economic matters and I also studied some economics, and the type of arguments which we have heard here, particularly from the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), surprises one, and the same applies to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). As far as they are concerned, everything in the garden is lovely from the Government’s point of view. The scapegoat must always be sought and found elsewhere. I maintain that whatever the failings of the Opposition parties may be, this Government is guilty and must be held primarily responsible for what is happening in our country to-day, and I hope we shall hear less and less of these tactics of continually seeking to blame others, if there is to be any hope for the future of our nation. Other hon. members again have referred to the wonderful confidence which the public itself has expressed in the Government. At every succeeding election their majorities have become greater. As far as I am concerned, I want to say frankly that I find it disturbing that the people are still persisting in the road they are following, and I want to repeat that even if there should eventually only be Nationalists in this House, it would not be an indication of strength, but of the extreme danger facing the future of our country. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has said that the Government intends saving White civilization in South Africa, while the Opposition are only obsessed with financial matters. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has also said that repeatedly in the past. Sir, I believe that man does not live by bread alone, but I also know that if a nation is seeking destruction, then it should allow its bread to be destroyed. Here we are faced—and I hope the nation will realize it—with a dilemma at a time when it is absolutely essential, even for the implementation of the policy of this Government, that the economy should expand, that there should be new life and confidence, because without that development we can pronounce sentence of death over even the apartheid policy of the Government. If hon. members still want to implement that policy, it is essential that our economy should develop and that there should be stability and confidence in the country; hon. members simply cannot implement that policy if that confidence is exposed to more and more shocks. Let us have no illusions in that regard. The dilemma facing us is that we have a situation in this country where the non-White is so integrated into our economy that we cannot do without him. Whether we want to admit or not, that is the irrefutable fact. We find a tendency and a development to-day which is the cause of this lack of confidence, namely that the non-Whites, our workers, are becoming more and more dissatisfied and more and more unwilling to work, to make the greatest possible contribution to this economy on which all of us are dependent and on which any plans the Government may have for the future are dependent as well. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is talking nonsense if he maintains that anyone on this side of the House is prepared as it were to betray the future of his own children by merely placing emphasis on the financial aspect, while the hon. member and his friends have been chosen by the Almighty to maintain White civilization in this country. Mr. Chairman, we cannot safeguard White civilization—call it what you will; I prefer to call it our Christian Western civilization—by repeatedly throwing overboard the standards and values on which that civilization is built. We cannot preserve that civilization in Southern Africa if we cannot extend that civilization to other races in this country as well. We could just as well try to reach for the moon—which has almost become a practical possibility to-day—as think that we can preserve Christian White civilization in Southern Africa if we do not also succeed in giving others a share in that civilization.

The hon. member must now return to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the economic aspect. If we cannot inspire the non-White workers of this country with a greater feeling of goodwill towards the Whites, if the co-operation which has developed in our economy over the past 300 years cannot continue to develop and improve, then the productive sources of our wealth will dry up, and that will also mean the eventual destruction of our civilization. It is our dilemma that in our daily actions, in our economy, we are trying to strive after what is a contradiction in terms. We want to have the co-operation of the non-Whites, but we do not want to concede to the non-Whites the principles which have brought the White man where he is. We want to restrict him to an ever-increasing extent …

That is not so.

… raids are being carried out daily. These things look all very well, but the fact that the Government regards it as necessary to treat the labour corns of this country in that way, is what I consider to be a symptom of the greatest crisis facing South Africa and do not let us deceive ourselves. If the Government cannot improve the relations between White and non-White, if we must do so to an ever-increasing extent by the use of the police, the defence force, Saracen tanks and machine guns, then the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance must realize that we are on the threshold of an era where raising the discount rate by ½ per cent, instead of having the effect they expect—I prophesy this—will have exactly the reverse effect. It will give the outside world and our country as well a further shock. It will have a depressing effect on our economy and not a stimulating effect. We shall have the same type of position as prevailed in America in 1929; namely that the higher the discount rate went, the greater the reverse effect which it had on the people who should be economically active. [Time limit.]

The steps which were announced yesterday remind one involuntarily of the energetic action taken by the Government after 1948 when we were also faced with a tremendous economic problem. We are all familiar with the good results which the fearless steps taken by the Government had at the time. We prophesy that the same results will be achieved on this occasion.

At that time devaluation was the result.

If that hon. member will listen for a while, he will hear what else I have to say. When we examine the steps being taken to-day, the planning in the economic sphere, then one is struck by the fact that never before have plans for our South African economy been drawn up on so systematic a basis as to-day, when we have an economic advisory council and we have sent trade missions abroad, from which we expect a great deal. But then the least we can do in this country, if we cannot support them in the difficult task which rests on them, is to practise a little more self-control. When one finds a front bencher of the United Party saying—

then one feels that such people are undermining the great and valuable work which is being done. The statement I have quoted was made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) at a public meeting. Hon. members know him. He talks of a “calm analysis” and we know that he definitely does not have the ability or the temperament to make a “calm analysis” of such a complicated situation. When a person makes such statements, then he must be accused of one of two things: Of disloyalty to his country, or else he is suffering from a lack of cortical inhibition—and I think in his case he is suffering from both.

But I return to the planning of our economy, and I want to say that one of the things which strikes us particularly and which gratifies us is that we welcome the increasing attention which is being given to the desirability of the decentralization of industries. A characteristic of our industrial development over the past decade has in fact been this process of concentration. A survey has been carried out and it has become clear that during the period 1916 to 1952 the total number of workers in private industry increased greatly, but this was the position particularly in the southern Transvaal. During this period the number increased in the southern Transvaal from 28.2 per cent to 44.6 per cent, while in the western Cape, Port Elizabeth and Durban the numbers have fallen from 35.4 per cent to 32.4 per cent. Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous tendency which must be countered. It is dangerous to have an increasing concentration of industries in one single area, such as the southern Transvaal. In its report No. 282 on manufacturing industry in the Union, the Board of Trade and Industries has also expressed its concern—

On the other hand there is also another important report which refers to the dangers inherent in the depopulation of the platteland, and when we link these two aspects, we say that something must be done to decentralize our industries rapidly so that these decentralized industries can become industrial contour walls which are erected to prevent the erosion of our population. When we ask how this is to be done, we know of course that we cannot expect the impossible. After all we cannot establish a factory in an area without taking into account the raw materials, the transport facilities, the available labour resources, power, labour, water and light, and the proximity of the markets which that specific industry serves. In South Africa with its peculiar problems a further factor has been introduced, namely the border areas of the natural homelands of the Bantu where we for understandable reasons want more industries to be established.

Mr. Chairman, the Northern Cape and particularly the Kimberley area fall within one of these areas which have been selected for this purpose. Fact Paper No. 35 of May 1957, which has been drawn up by experts, also shows that the Kimberley area complies with practically all the necessary requirements. It is for that reason that I want to take the opportunity this morning to urge upon the hon. the Minister once again that he should consider the possibility of erecting a steel factory in that area. Because this area has practically everything which is required for such a factory—it has the raw materials, and the main line which can serve the southern and northern areas as well as Rhodesia runs through it. In other words, South Africa’s main transport artery runs through it. In addition it is very near the Bantu reserves, according to map No. 6 of the Fact Paper. One of the important recommendations is that something should be done along those lines. But in addition we must also remember that there is increasing unemployment amongst the Bantu of that area, because the diggings are becoming exhausted and employment must be found for thousands of Natives. Power, water and light are available, and water is such an important factor. We cannot always depend on the Vaal Dam. Furthermore, there is the consideration of the proximity of the necessary markets.

Mr. Chairman, if provision must be made in that area for the requirements of the areas south of the line and even from Bloemfontein southwards, then I think that we shall have more than sufficient markets the requirements of which that area can meet. The one great defect is of course the lack of coal. But we must remember that new processes are being developed. There is the Krupp-Renn process in which coal is no longer such an important item. We urge that other more modern techniques which can be utilized and which will dispense with coal to an even greater extent should be investigated. We also want to point out that a sound platteland population is necessary for the development and preservation of a strong nation. It is the platteland which is the guardian of a nation’s cultural values. Even if we have to pay to transport the coal, then we say that the price will be worth while because the welfare of a nation is not only determined by economic factors, but also by social and other considerations. In addition there is the warning we have been given, namely that to an increasing extent we are exporting and losing our high-grade ores. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot at least investigate the question of whether the pre-refinement can be undertaken in that area. This will already help a great deal to solve the problems to which I have referred.

The last speaker has paid a lot of tributes to the Government’s plan for our future economic development. But he does not appear to have read the speeches of the heads of the Economic Advisory Council, who have explained at great length on occasion that without an expanding economy the border reserve plan is doomed to failure. And I assume that even that hon. member does not claim that at the moment our economy is expanding, particularly in view of the things that have happened since we came to attend this Session of Parliament. We started off in the Budget with increases in import duties. Yesterday we got a credit squeeze combined with the tightening up of import control. But I am perfectly sure that notwithstanding all the great plans of which the hon. member spoke, there are not many joyous hearts in the world of commerce to-day. These hearts are not joyous, and they are joining the world of industry in this feeling. And this is all brought about by the policies of this Government and nothing else.

Out of the White Paper in connection with the Budget statement I have taken the following figures: our imports from the United Kingdom dwindled from 1957 to 1960 by R43,500,000. From the United States they have dwindled by R5,500,000. Our imports from West Germany increased by R23,796,000 and our imports from Italy increased R9,000,000-odd. Our exports to the same countries show these figures: To the United Kingdom over that period our exports increased by R7,200,000; to the U.S.A, by R3,642,000. To Germany however they decreased by roughly R6,500,000 and to Italy they decreased by roughly R8,000,000. These figures show that while we were selling more to our old friends the United Kingdom and the United States of America in 1960 than we were in 1957, we are buying much less from them. We are buying R43,500,000 less in the case of the United Kingdom and R5,500,000 less in the case of the United States of America. Against this we are selling substantially less to West Germany and Italy; R6,500,000 and nearly R8,000,000 respectively while, as I said earlier on, we are buying very much more from each.

Now Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he proposes to do in regard to this matter, particularly in the case of West Germany. In 1953 West Germany bought from us approximately R38,000,000 worth of goods, and in 1960 goods to the value of approximately R34,000,000. That is a drop of R4,000,000. But going back to 1953—the figures for which I gave earlier—we purchased from West Germany approximately R40,000,000 worth of goods and in 1960 the figure was over R111,000,000. This means that while West Germany bought R4,000,000 worth less from us in 1960, we bought approximately R71,000,000 more from her in 1960 than we did in 1953. There must surely be something wrong here. I cannot imagine that imports are being made very much more easy from West Germany than from elsewhere—although, of course, that is possible. I want to repeat these figures: In 1960, according to the White Paper, we bought from West Germany goods to the value of R111,000,000 odd, and they bought from us goods to the value of R34,000,000-odd, a shortfall of over R77,000,000. Surely these figures give us the right to ask the hon. the Minister what he is doing about it or whether he can do anything about it. Surely he can press for greater purchases from West Germany, or is he precluded from doing so by G.A.T.T. or some other agreement? I would like to ask him why he has sat so complacently while West Germany is catching our markets and doing less and less for us in return? There must be some reason and I hope that he will give it to us.

This leads me to another point. This Government has sent trade commissions of able men to the four corners of the world. I want to ask the Minister this: If we cannot break into the West Germany market while we are supporting them to such a degree as we are at present, does he expect these missions to be successful elsewhere?

That brings us to a further point: This Government has left the Commonwealth and part of the United Kingdom market is in very grave jeopardy, Ghana, India, Nigeria and Malaya boycott South African goods. A previous speaker has dealt with those figures so I will not repeat them, but the fact remains that they have affected our exports. The whole of the African market is now lost to us except, of course, Southern Rhodesia, which will dwindle over the years. Yet this Government and this hon. Minister say that it does not matter and that they will find markets elsewhere. I want to know where those markets are. Let us go round the globe and look at the places these missions went to. Surely the United States and Canada are mainly self-sufficient? South America, which is largely undeveloped, trades traditionally with the U.S.A. and Europe. We might break in there, but it will be a long hard road. And what about Europe? I want to read to this Committee what Lord Home, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said to the Institute for the Study of International Politics in Milan in Italy in February 1961. He said this—

That is Italy of course. He went on—

And that protecting blanket we have, of course, chosen to throw into the gutter. This Government has left the Commonwealth. I do not want to deal with that disaster at length, but when we as an isolated country deal with the members of the Six and Seven, we will not be partners of the Commonwealth, and I would like the hon. the Minister to give us his views as to what chances we have of establishing markets there.

The figures I have given with regard to our trade in West Germany and Italy show the impossible situation into which this Government has led us. Of course, people will sell to us if our money is good—and our money is good, notwithstanding yesterday’s statements. Even this Government cannot ruin us at a moment’s notice, it will take a little longer. Of course they will sell to us if our money is good. But we have got to sell to them or our standard of living will go down and down, and everybody knows that, or ought to. I ask this hon. Minister, I think he owes it to us all to tell us what difficulties stand in the way of our selling more goods to West Germany. Why have we failed to extend our foothold there? Surely we have done enough for them? If we cannot extend our exports to them after all the money we spend buying from them, how are we going to break into markets elsewhere in Europe? This Government has certainly brought us to a sorry pass.

As far as our exports are concerned this now leaves the Far East, including Japan, China and Russia. If we cannot expand our export trade in Africa—and that has gone because of the policies of this Government—if we cannot expand in Europe no matter what we spend there, because of this Government having left the Commonwealth; if India, Malaya and the other non-White countries close their doors to us, what is left to us? Where can we sell? I admit that our exports to Japan have risen considerably recently, but from memory they have not reached the figures that they were in 1953. The Americas are not promising for us to sell goods to. What are we going to do? Are we going to trade only with Japan or are we going to concentrate all our efforts on Russia and China? Because they seem to be the only ones left. This position is impossible for industry, and I would ask the hon. the Minister please to give us in plain language the reason why he has found it so difficult to expand our exports to West Germany in view of the treatment they are getting from us in every direction. I should like to know whether he thinks these difficulties can be overcome, and if they can be overcome in West Germany, Italy and elsewhere, will he please tell us how he proposes to do it?

Mr. Chairman, I think that I should reply at this stage to certain of the questions and problems which have been raised. I shall start with the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) but I think the House will agree with me that it is not necessary for me to devote much time to what the hon. member said last night, in the first place because in his 30-minute speech he said absolutely nothing new. The statements he made were statements we have heard time and time again, namely the old complaint that the economy is absolutely sound and that the fault lies solely with the colour policy of the Government. I say that he has said nothing new, except for what we have already heard so often in this regard. In the second place the hon. member has offered no criticism of the economy of the country as such, and I want to thank him for the compliment he has paid to my Department by not offering one word of criticism of the economy as such during his whole speech, but only of the colour policy of the Government. Actually he should have made that speech on a motion of no confidence or during a debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. But in the third place, the hon. member, as we have learned to know him, has put forward no proposals which are of a positive economic nature. As a leading economist on that side of the House, he had a golden opportunity to make certain positive economic proposals, and during this debate, just as in all the speeches he has made in the past, he has not succeeded in making one single positive economic suggestion. All he has said is that the Government should change its colour policy; for the rest he has not discussed economic matters. On occasion during this debate I wondered whether I should not rise and ask the Chairman whether we could not come back to Vote 40, namely Commerce and Industries.

I now just want to put this brief question to the hon. member: If we as the Government should abandon our colour policy, what colour policy does he then consider should be adopted in our country so that the economy can once again be placed on a sound basis? Certainly not their policy. As they admit, their policy is also a policy of discrimination. Their policy suffers from the disadvantage that the people of South Africa reject it, while our policy is accepted and is being accepted to an ever-increasing extent. Their policy suffers from the disadvantage that the people of South Africa and the world too reject it, because it is a policy of discrimination. If colour policy is to solve the economic problems of South Africa, if a change in our colour policy is the key to the solution of our economic problems, then it is not the policy of that side which will produce the solution, but the policy of the Afro-Asian States which is the only policy which would satisfy the world, and that is a policy of complete equality in South Africa. That policy is not only one of complete equality, but is also a policy which would eventually result in the White man of South Africa being expelled from South Africa, and what would then become of the economy of the country?

The hon. member has referred to our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. I agree with him entirely that the harm our leaving the Commonwealth has done to our economy has been more of a psychological nature, as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has said—it has had more of a psychological effect because of the hesitation and uncertainty which it has introduced into our economy and which I hope is of a temporary nature. The hon. member has discussed our colour policy, and I want to ask him what price he was prepared to pay in order to remain a member of the Commonwealth. And having asked this question I just want to read to him again what Mr. Macmillan said when discussing “the Commonwealth”—

That is the policy of the Commonwealth which he wants to force upon us and I wonder whether the hon. member would have been prepared to pay that price?

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has referred to an argument used by the business community, by commerce and industry, who have made certain statements recently as to how we should strengthen South Africa’s economy. I have also read of those statements. Commerce and industry have spoken, but the mandate in terms of which this Government is acting is one which has been given to it by the nation. The policy of hon. members opposite which those people advocate is a policy which has been put to the people for years past and which the people have consistently rejected. The hon. member for Jeppes now asks me whether I consider that these people want to destroy their business undertakings when they put forward such policies. But does the hon. member think that the people of South Africa want to destroy themselves? I am always prepared to listen to the representatives of commerce and industry. I have always done so in the past. I believe that the co-operation which exists between my Department and organized commerce and industry is very sound, and I hope that position will always remain unchanged. I am prepared to listen to the representatives of commerce and industry whenever they approach me in the interests of commerce and industry and of the economy of the country. But there are certain groups in commerce and industry which approach the Government with purely political policies which in many respects go far further than even the policy of the United Party, and then they must forgive me if I do not listen to those representations.

The hon. member for Jeppes has discussed foreign capital. I agree with him entirely that we should do everything in our power to attract foreign capital to this country, especially genuine investment capital, and especially capital which is accompanied by knowledge, and especially capital which will bring about the development of new industries in co-operation with South African investors. But the capital inflow has diminished in recent times and there are many other reasons besides those mentioned by the hon. member opposite. There is the question of the fear of Africa as a whole which has already been mentioned. There is the capital shortage which is being experienced throughout the world. There is the capital aid which has to be provided to the developing young countries, and which is absorbing a large proportion of the capital available in the world. There is the development of the Common Market, the European Free Trade Association, and it is especially the Common Market and the E.E.G. which are attracting vast sums of capital particularly from England and America and leaving less for us. There are also other factors which are harming us, such as rumours and stories which are being spread regarding our country, and I say they are deliberate and wilful stories aimed at harming the economy of South Africa. I refer the House to the report which appeared a few weeks ago in one of the British newspapers and which contained the untruth that we were considering withholding a portion of the dividends of foreign investors to finance the development of the Bantu homelands. I say that that was a report which was deliberately aimed at harming the economy of South Africa, and such reports are often published. I have even encountered rumours in Britain and on the Continent which originated from Britain regarding certain steps which the Government was supposed to be going to take in respect of our economy, rumours which did enormous harm abroad and which were absolutely unfounded. I say that there are organizations in certain countries which are deliberately fabricating al) sorts of rumours and which are publishing those rumours with the deliberate aim of harming South Africa’s economy. But we welcome foreign capital. I have always said so and I stand by that. When I was overseas recently part of my task was to try to persuade industrialists to invest here. But we must be realistic. We must not talk as though foreign capital is the “cure-all” or the remedy which will solve all our difficulties. I expect it, and I want it, but I am a realist enough to know that foreign capital will not solve all our difficulties.

No?

Is the hon member saying that it will solve all our difficulties? No? Then we understand one another.

I want to take this opportunity to say that there are certain types of foreign investments in South Africa which are not always to our advantage. I am referring to companies which come here with a limited amount of investment capital of their own, but which borrow the major portion of their funds in South Africa at a low rate of interest. They then earn tremendous profits on their own capital, and only pay 6 per cent or 7 per cent on the money which they borrow here. I am also referring to the type of company which comes to this country with a limited capital and which conversely borrow their funds abroad from their parent companies at a high interest rate. I am referring to companies which have been financed recently by their parent companies but which have recently been sending those funds to the countries in which their parent companies are situated and approaching our banks to meet their financial needs. Part of our capital outflow has not been represented by funk capital of people who are capitalizing their assets in South Africa, but a large part of our capital outflow has been caused by the fact that foreign companies are no longer advancing loans to their own subsidiary companies, and the subsidiaries have had to obtain their funds from the local banks. A vast proportion of our capital resources have left our country at this particular stage as a result of this process. I am also referring to companies which come to this country as international companies, buy up a mineral proposition and export certain of our minerals directly to their mother country at the cost of production alone. There is no local company which could pay certain taxes to us, but they take all those minerals and export them merely at the cost of production and leave the empty holes in the ground for us. My hon. friend has spoken about the refining of our minerals. I could devote a great deal of time to that aspect if I had the time and also to the difficulties involved, but one of the difficulties is that certain of our raw materials which certain companies are exploiting, are not available to us as South Africans. These are matters which we shall have to investigate.

I am also referring to foreign companies which have established themselves here or which are co-operating with South African interests, but which do not want South Africa to export. They restrict the exportation of products which we produce here and which we could send to other countries because they want their own parent companies in other countries to supply those exports. I am just mentioning one or two examples to show that we must be realistic in these matters. All foreign capital is not an unmixed blessing, and these are problems which we must face. Nevertheless we shall do everything in our power to attract the right type of foreign capital to this country, particularly that type of capital which is prepared to co-operate with our undertakings in the exploitation of our raw materials.

I have been asked: What will happen to the preferences with Commonwealth countries? I should like to take this opportunity to make the following statement:

On 16 March I issued a statement which was intended to reassure exporters who were exporting to Commonwealth countries and who had doubts as to the tariff position in the immediate future following our announcement that we were leaving the Commonwealth, and I also gave them an unequivocal assurance that any increased tariffs which might be imposed on shipments from that day on until and including a date on which I would make a further statement, would be met by the Union Government.

This was a temporary measure during a period of uncertainty. That uncertainty has now been removed to a large extent and we know what the tariff position is as regards 98.4 per cent (1960 figures) of our export trade with members of the Commonwealth. The undertaking I gave on behalf of the Government has therefore served its purpose and must now lapse.

For the information of exporters in particular and the public in general, I want to explain briefly what the tariff position in respect of our exports to various Commonwealth countries is and will be after 31 May.

The customs duties on our exports to the United Kingdom will undergo no change as a result of the ending of our Commonwealth membership. The position is also covered by the British stand-still legislation. This legislation also covers the tariff position in respect of any British colonies. British Protectorates and British trust territories which are not covered by formal bilaterial agreements between the governing powers.

The position as regards the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland remains unchanged as a result of our agreement with the Federation.

The position as regards Australia remains unchanged as a result of our and their membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Canadian Government has formally informed the Union Government that trade relations between Canada and the Union will continue unchanged as far as they are concerned after 31 May.

The New Zealand Government on the other hand has informed us that the position as regards goods which are covered by our agreement will remain unchanged, while most favoured nation treatment will be afforded to all our other exports to New Zealand in view of the fact that we are both members of G.A.T.T. In 1960 these exports to New Zealand totalled R1.7 million.

The New Zealand Government has however agreed that the latter type of goods which are shipped from the Union (or railed for example for shipment from Lourenço Marques) will still be admitted at the present tariffs up to and including 31 May.

Our tariff position as regards Cyprus, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaya where we enjoy preferences as a result of our membership of the Commonwealth remains unfinalized for the moment.

Our trade with Cyprus is insignificant—that with Ceylon and Pakistan is not inconsiderable but the balance is in their favour, that is to say they export more to us than they import from us. The Government will watch the actions of these States carefully but does not intend entering into specific negotiations with them in the near future.

Our position in Pakistan remains unchanged in view of the fact that we are both members of G.A.T.T.

Malaya, where we have enjoyed preferences, as well as Ghana and Nigeria where we enjoy no preferences and which are also members of the Commonwealth, have for a considerable period been enforcing an official boycott against the Union which was introduced while the Union was still a member of the Commonwealth. The expectation is that the position will remain unaltered after 31 May and the Government does not intend trying to persuade these states to adopt a different attitude.

As I have already said, we now have certainty as regards the tariff position of nearly 99 per cent (1960 pattern) of our trade with the countries which are still members of the Commonwealth. Our tariff position with other countries of the world will also not be affected by our becoming a republic.

I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to our exporters not to relax their efforts but to cultivate existing markets with renewed energy and to gain new markets. We can do so if we have the will to do so.

After this statement I want to discuss one or two questions which hon. members have put. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has asked questions about import permits in respect of new motor cars. I just want to inform him briefly that no additional foreign exchange will be made available for any new cars. Even if certain companies are importing new models and new types of cars, they must take the exchange which they use for that purpose from the total allocation which they have been given. I just want to add that he is probably referring to certain Japanese cars, but the importation of Japanese cars has absolutely nothing to do with our trade missions. These cars were already being marketed two years ago, although on a small scale, and the foreign exchange which we have provided for the importation of those cars was provided in the light of commitments which were entered into more than two years ago. I also just want to add that over and above the formula which is being applied to the motor trade in general, we have in fact made certain allocations to certain young companies to enable them to operate economically. I shall always follow that policy. I shall not take such action that we may expose ourselves once again to the accusation that we are taking a certain year, let us say 1948, as a basis, as the Opposition often did, and basing all import permits on that year. There must always be scope for the young man and the young industry that show that they have the potential to develop if a small initial concession is made. I may say that the matter has been discussed with the motor trade and that they have accepted it in principle.

The hon. member has also asked me whether we shall tighten up the hire-purchase regulations. My reply is that we are not considering it at the moment. He has asked me about a tender by the Department of Transport for certain motor cars which was subject to the condition that imported tyres would be fitted. My Department is not aware of any such tender. We do know that certain cars have been imported and that the manufacturers’ instructions were to the effect that certain tyres should be fitted for safety reasons, tyres which are not obtainable locally. The tyres to which the hon. member has referred are probably tyres which are not obtainable locally.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has questioned me about the trade missions. I am surprised that the hon. member takes such an interest in these trade missions, particularly after the unkind remarks which the hon. member made a few weeks ago about these trade missions. A few weeks ago during the Budget debate the hon. member went to far as to compare these trade missions unfavourably with the “King Kong” group which is now appearing in London, and he was not joking. He said: “I do not want to be facetious, I do not want to belittle their efforts. To the outsider of course it may well seem that in the present political climate just as ‘King Kong ’ has gone to London, so the three other live shows go east, west and north to put South Africa economically on the map. In that regard again, I do not want to be facetious.” In other words, he was in earnest; that was his considered opinion. He then said: “But my own impression is that ‘ King Kong ’ will show the best results.”

Shame!

At a time such as this, when we should all put our shoulders to the wheel in order to do our best for South Africa, when we are trying to take positive steps to promote South Africa’s economic development, then hon. members and particularly a respected member such as the hon. member, have risen and belittled not only our sincere attempts to promote South African exports, but he has belittled some of the most eminent men in South Africa by comparing them with “King Kong”, At a time when these people must negotiate abroad with governments and with the leading figures in commerce and industry abroad, on behalf of South Africa and not on behalf of a political party … The hon. member is laughing. He is probably once again making a joke about these trade missions. But at a time when our representatives have to negotiate abroad on matters affecting our country’s exports, he has come forward in our own country, as a leading figure in the United Party and without being repudiated has said that we have sent a “King Kong” mission abroad. But the hon. member has not put anything else forward. Just like other hon. members he has made no positive proposals. They do not offer any economic policy. My only reply is that the United Party’s economic policy is nothing but a “King Kong” policy. But despite this I shall give the hon. member and the House a few details regarding these tours. I cannot discuss all the aspects, but I may just say that the three trade missions are following their predetermined schedules. There is a long list of various countries. The one in America is at present in San Francisco. The one in the East is at present in Tokyo, and the one in Europe is in Switzerland at the moment. But they are following their schedules. I might just also inform the Committee that although we have not yet received formal and official reports from these missions, the reports which we have hitherto received in the form of letters from these missions are particularly favourable. In every country they have been received with the utmost hospitality in the highest industrial, commercial and governmental circles, and they have been able to inform us that they feel particularly gratified about the future possibilities as far as our exports and our trade are concerned. But commerce and industry must follow up these prospects themselves. Through these missions we shall establish the necessary contacts and we shall convey the necessary information to commerce and industry, but they will have to follow up these contacts themselves. Just this morning I received a letter from Dr. Holloway from which I want to read just one sentence—

And we are receiving the same type of report from all these missions. In this regard you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, just to say a few words of deep sympathy regarding the death of Dr. du Toit who was the leader of our mission to the East. His death in the East while in the service of his country is deeply regretted by all of us. His services to the State and South Africa are greatly appreciated and we wish to convey our sympathy to his family.

I might just add that under these tragic circumstances our mission was afforded every kindness and all possible assistance in Bangkok, where the tragedy took place, by the authorities, from the Prime Minister downwards, for which we are very grateful.

The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) has asked about the E.E.G. That is a long story. He has asked whether there will be any further diminution of the preferences enjoyed by Commonwealth countries. We have already seen such a diminution as a result of the E.F.T.A. and we know that there may be a further diminution of these preferences if Britain should apply for and obtain membership of the European Economic Group. We know that Britain has been trying for a long time to join the E.E.G. either as a country or as part of the E.F.T.A. We know that these attempts have hitherto not met with much success. Britain finds it politically and economically important that she should not be excluded from this important market, although her exports mostly go to countries other than the area covered by the Six. There are other reasons why she would like to link up with the Six, but there are various difficulties in the way. The first difficulty is that the Six constitute more than a purely economic community. They also have specific political aims, such as economic unity and eventually ever-increasing political unity. They are not merely a tariff-forming group, but they want to achieve co-ordination in the policies of the various countries in various spheres such as transport, social life, wages, labour, etc., and Britain has always been against associating herself with this group which is aiming at economic unity, but which is also aiming at more than economic unity, that is to say at political unity as well; and not only Britain, but countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Sweden which are neutral countries are afraid to link themselves too closely with the E.E.G. because of its political significance. The second reason is the external tariff. The six countries are building up a common external tariff. The Efta countries, the seven countries, do not have a common tariff; each country has its own external tariffs. The difficulty in attempting to reconcile these two groups has always been how to reconcile the common external tariff of the Six with the differing tariffs of the Seven. A third difficulty has been the agricultural problem. Efta is an industrial agreement: it excludes agricultural products. The Six include agricultural products, although they have not yet found a solution for their agricultural problems. But there are two differing points of view in respect of agricultural policy within these groups which also make it difficult for them to work more closely together. The fourth problem has been the problem of Commonwealth preferences. It was felt in the E.E.G. countries that it was impossible to admit Britain to the E.E.G. while she still enjoyed her own preferences on the one hand and on the other hand was affording preferences to Commonwealth countries. The attempt foundered on these difficulties, and until recently a formula had not yet been found. But both sides are working hard on the matter, and it is my impression that a formula will be found. Recent reports indicate ever more strongly that a method will be found by which Britain will become more closely linked to the E.E.G. I feel that this in turn will be accompanied by a change in the preference position between Britain and the Commonwealth countries. There are clear indications that to enable Britain to enter the E.E.G., the preferential position of the Commonwealth countries will have to be diminished to a certain extent. I do not want to go into this question any further. I just want to say this: We are keeping a close watch on the position of the E.E.G. and its relations with Efta; we are keeping a very close watch on the effects which the changes in Europe in this regard may have on our economy. We have decided to appoint an economist to Brussels. As hon. members know, our ambassador is already accredited to the E.E.G. but we also want to appoint an economist whose main task will be to make a continuous study and to keep himself informed at all times of what is happening in the E.E.G. and then to report to us. The trade missions have also been entrusted with the task of negotiating with all the leading figures in commerce and industry and if necessary to approach Government bodies as well, which they have already done in many industries. Their task is to see which of the goods which South Africa has available and which such a country requires can be exported to that country and to find organizations which want to take such products from South Africa, but if restrictions are being placed on our trade through governmental action, they will also discuss the matter with such governments. In this regard they have an open mandate, and with this purpose in mind they are meeting all important bodies such as the chambers of commerce and the chambers of industry as well as governmental bodies in these countries. The estimated cost of these missions, for which we have obtained Treasury approval, is in the neighbourhood of R80,000 for the whole tour.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van der Heever) has asked what the position is as regards the establishment of a motor industry. I can tell him that we are giving very careful attention to the development of a South African motor industry of our own.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) has raised certain matters, some of which I have already discussed. I also agree with him that these measures which we are taking are not permanent measures. We hope that they will be temporary measures. In the meantime we must continue with our policy of protection and with the development of our economy by every positive method, so that we can dispense with these measures as soon as possible. Many countries have been obliged to take these temporary measures. Many of these measures which were announced yesterday, for example, in the form of currency controls, have been adopted by countries such as America in recent times. The raising of the interest rates is a step which has been taken in all countries, and our discount rates is still one of the lowest in the world. Two years ago Britain’s was still 7 per cent. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has referred to the case of Ghana. I just want to tell him that I cannot reply to that question. It is a matter which he can put this afternoon to the Minister of the Interior, that is to say the question of the legislation depriving persons who go to Ghana and who sign anti-apartheid declarations in that country of their citizenship.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) has discussed the erection of a steel factory. He has already put his case to me often and well, and I congratulate him on the way in which he is serving his constituency in this regard, and I want to say at once that we shall certainly give serious consideration to these representations.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has discussed our trade with West Germany in particular. He has said that our exports to Germany are not increasing rapidly enough for his liking, and he has asked what we are doing about it. I want to point out that the value of our exports to Western Germany totalled R28,000 in 1958, R32,000 in 1959 and R34,000 in 1960. There has therefore been an increase of nearly 20 per cent over this period. We shall do everything in our power —and we are also doing so by the expansion of our representation in these countries—to stimulate trade with the Six. We are strengthening our trade missions in Europe. But it is not the Government which is going to sell in those countries; it is the exporters who must sell there, and the exporters have hitherto always regarded London as their base. Most of them have concentrated on Britain and forgotten Europe—including France, Italy and Western Germany. I believe that if our exporters would also give some attention to the European continent, they would find a vast market which is still lying fallow as far as South Africa is concerned. I recently came across one case where a certain article was required in Germany and was ordered. The reply was that the articles had to be supplied from England, and that article was then sent from England. When they arrived in Germany—this was an edible commodity—they were in such bad condition that they had to be thrown away and the whole market was spoiled. But certain people believe that one should do all one’s business from Britain. We must persuade our businessmen, our industrialists, our exporters, to regard the Continent as the Continent; to suit their labels, their methods of marketing and their advertising to the needs of those countries. The hon. member referred the other day to a point which I also want to emphasize. Jams, canned fruits and canned vegetables, etc., are quite correctly marketed under English labels in Britain. That is quite correct, but then the same articles are sent from Britain to France and Germany under English labels, and our people have not yet had the imagination to market in French in France, in German in Germany and in Italian in Italy. There is much that can be done in this direction. For the Government’s part we shall do everything in our power to open markets in Western Europe for our industries; there are great potentialities; but our exporters must please make their contribution as well.

I do not want to follow the Minister in the attitude he took at the beginning of his speech other than to refer to two points which I think require an answer. The first is that the Minister gave the House a statement in regard to the tariff position after 31 May, but all that he told the House was that in most instances temporary provision had been made while the issue was being considered by other countries. In no case did he give us any indication as to what the Government was doing towards a permanent settlement of the issue. We all know that the British government has passed the stand-still Act. What we are interested in is something beyond to-morrow. Throughout the statement the words “temporary” and “stand-still” and “in the meantime” appear. What South Africa is interested in is what is going to happen when these standstill agreements come to a conclusion and when we are faced with a permanent position.

I want to deal too with the Minister’s reference to the interference by spokesmen of commerce and industry in politics. The Minister seems to consider that as soon as anything to do with the non-Whites comes into the picture it immediately becomes politics. Does he regard things like job reservation as politics and no concern of commerce and industry? Does he regard the question of Native labour resources and control and direction as something which commerce and industry should keep out of because it is a political issue?

And the question of influx control.

The question of influx control, yes.

They want the abolition of influx control.

No responsible body has asked for the abolition of influx control.

The Chambers of Industries did.

That is not correct. That is the sort of politics that is being played here. No responsible body has asked for the abolition of influx control. There have been requests in regard to the administration of that policy. Sir, questions like the establishment of border industries, which is Government policy, immediately becomes politics irrespective of their effect on commerce and industry. This Minister seems to live in an ivory tower when it comes to the administration of his Department. He seems to regard the question of economics and the question of politics as being two completely divorced matters. The point that has been made time and again from this side of the House is that you cannot divorce the two issues; you cannot divorce the political policies of a country from the consequences which those policies have on the economics of that country. The Minister very proudly says that this policy has been accepted by the people and he goes on to say, “What else can we do? We are carrying out a mandate of the people.” What he is saying in fact is that the people of South Africa must now start to pay the price for the course which the Government is following, and he is not interested in what that price is going to be. He is not interested in the hardships which may flow from it. I want now to refer to the effect of his statement last night, the effect of import permits in the case of textile piece goods. I hope the Minister will give us some more information on this. I would like to know whether textiles for industrial purposes will be exempt —textiles required as raw materials. I would like to know whether he will give any special consideration to those firms whose entire business is dependent on the handling of textiles, for instance textile wholesalers whose whole existence depends on this particular trade.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has put up the defence here that the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries allegedly do not take part in politics; he suggests that where they have made statements they have confined themselves purely to economic matters. For his information I just want to quote what was said by one of the chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce. I have here a report from Port Elizabeth that appeared in the Cape Argus. It reads—

And then the hon. member tells us that they only express opinions on economic matters. The fact remains that in recent times the Federated Chambers of Commerce in particular had done its utmost to bring political pressure to bear in South Africa and it has not succeeded. But I want to come back to this other story of the Opposition, of which the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) also makes so much use, and that is that money is flowing out of this country as a result of lack of confidence not only in this Government’s policy but as the result of lack of confidence in the whole economy of South Africa. This same story was used on a large scale in the by-election campaign in Swellendam, and none other than the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), whom I informed that I was going to raise this matter and who told me that he was not sure whether he could be here, used this same story during the by-election in Swellendam and stated that people had so little confidence in South Africa that they were sending money out of this country on a large scale. Amongst his audience there were people who knew that it was unlawful to send money out of the country, and they then asked him whether he knew of any people who had sent money out of the country and who they were, and his reply was that National Party Ministers were buying farms in Rhodesia. In other words, he wanted to create the impression that there was so little confidence in South Africa that even Ministers were sending their money out of the country, although he knows perfectly well that what he referred to there, is something that happened seven or eight years ago when certain Ministers or a certain Minister —I do not know who—bought certain land in Rhodesia. But his common sense should have told him that if one wants to send money out of South Africa, one would certainly not send it to Rhodesia. One would not jump from the frying pan into the fire. If one wished to send money out of the country one would send it a little farther afield than Rhodesia.

I want to say a few words in regard to this question of money being sent out of this country. Who are the people whose confidence in the economy of South Africa has been shocked? Who are the people who are selling their shares at the moment, as the result of which we have an unfavourable trade balance, as a result of which money is being sent out of this country? Is it the large financial institutions? Is it people who are acquainted with what is going on in South Africa? No, the only people who are selling their shares to-day, the only people who are trying to send money out of this country, are the small investors who have allowed themselves to be frightened—not those people who have any knowledge of the economy of this country. The large financial institutions still have the same confidence in South Africa, and they are still investing money in South Africa. May I just refer to the transaction which has just gone through, in which the United Dominion Corporation, which is an exclusively British financial institution, in co-operation with certain others, paid a fantastic price for the shares of Cuthberts. Is that a sign of a lack of confidence in South Africa? The question might well be asked why investors overseas are not buying shares here at the moment. Because there are bargains to be picked up to-day on the Stock Exchange in South Africa which are to be found nowhere else in the world. Let me mention just one example. To-day one can buy De Beers Deferred, which everybody admits is almost as safe as Barclays Bank or as the Bank of England, at a price which gives one almost 10 per cent on one’s money. The question is why overseas investors are not buying, and the reply to that question is perfectly clear. The overseas investor and the financial institutions are not buying because they have been led to believe that they will be able to get those shares even more cheaply later this month. Instead of trying to restore these people’s confidence, the English newspapers and prominent members of the United Party have led them to believe that we are going to have trouble during May, and that share prices are going to drop further as a result of that, and the only reason why people are not buying is because they expect that there might be unrest, disturbances and bloodshed, and that they will be able to buy those shares even more cheaply later. One expects every South African to try to remove that false impression and to tell those people that their investments here will be safe. But is that what the Opposition does? I want to refer now to one of the most shocking speeches that has probably ever been made by a politician in South Africa. I refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) the other evening at Plumstead. In any other country he would certainly not have retained his freedom if he had made this type of speech, because what does he say?

They would have thrown him in gaol.

He says—

After all, he knows that that is not true. Then he goes on to say—

Is he not ashamed of himself? Why does he not tell the truth to the world and say that one of our greatest problems is to keep the Bantu beyond our borders out of our country, because they are continually crossing our borders to be oppressed under these terrible so-called “oppressive laws” of this Government. Why does he tell people that we are preparing for civil war in South Africa and that we can only maintain our position here by the use of force?

Incitement.

He goes on to say—

I say that when the hon. member said these things he knew that they were untrue. He deliberately suppresses the facts which are favourable to South Africa, because he knows that the steps which have now been taken are not at all unusual steps. They are steps which are regularly taken in England and in America and in every democratic country in the world, but the hon. member pretends that these steps are being taken in preparation for civil war in South Africa. Who is going to buy shares here if there is going to be civil war in this month of May? No, rather wait until 31 May, because then you will be able to buy the shares even more cheaply.

And that comes from a United Party front-bencher.

He goes on to say—

Who would buy shares under those circumstances? But then he goes even further and tells this untruth to explain why the position is so bad. He says—

In which funk-hole is he hiding now?

And the one “blunder” that the Prime Minister committed is the following—

I ask hon. members on that side: Do they agree with the “dogma of racial discrimination”? Do they want to abolish racial discrimination entirely? I put it to the hon. member for Durban (Point): Is that their policy? But they tell the rest of the world that the Government is preparing for civil war because the Government is practising a “dogma of racial discrimination”, while every member on that side subscribes to this “dogma of racial discrimination”. I say that this is one of the most shocking speeches that we have ever heard, and I can come to one conclusion only. If the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, does not repudiate this irresponsible nonsense immediately, then there can be one reason only, and that is that they would welcome it if there was bloodshed here in this month of May. [Time limit.]

If any evidence were needed of the bankruptcy of this Government’s policy in regard to economics, it was the speech to which we have just listened from this new economist in the Government ranks, a speech dealing entirely with a political speech made on political issues outside of this House. We here at the moment are dealing with the policy of the Minister of Economic Affairs and I do not intend, and neither does this side of the House intend, to be side-tracked by that sort of red-herring. We will deal with that in its own good time. But, Mr. Chairman, it is significant of the way this Government is trying to evade cold, hard facts in our economic life that in reply to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) the Minister of Economic Affairs made a political speech. He talked of saving the White “volk”. He did not answer the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes, and now we get the hon. member for Vereeniging making another political speech. As I said, I do not intend to be side-tracked.

Before business was interrupted, I was dealing with the question of the inter-relationship of politics and economic affairs, and the hon. member for Vereeniging quotes a speech by one individual as proof that the Chambers of Commerce are now taking part in politics. I say categorically that the official organization of the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries of South Africa does not interfere with politics, apart from the degree to which it affects the economy of South Africa. The hon. member talks of confidence when this Minister’s Industrial Development Corporation is investing funds in a company which is spending that money outside our borders. Is that confidence? The I.D.C. bid for the Cuthbert shares about which the hon. member was talking. The Industrial Development Corporation was involved in that take-over bid, and it is spending money outside our borders and then he talks about confidence!

I want to come back to two matters, the first of which I was dealing with when we adjourned, and that is the question of import permits in respect of textile piece goods. I would ask the Minister again for a clear statement as to the policy that the Government intends to follow in regard to the application of the permit system, in particular towards users of textile piece goods as raw material in South African industries, wholesalers who are dependent on that business and the general trade. The restrictions will inevitably throw a greater load upon large-scale wholesale distributors and I would ask the hon. the Minister for a clear statement to allay the concern of commerce in this regard. The Minister said that most of the textile piece goods could be supplied in South Africa. He knows that that is not so. Calico, drills, denims, certain grades of poplin are in fairly adequate supply, but he knows that a very large proportion of the textile piece goods imported cannot be made in this country, and in order to clarify the position, I trust that the Minister will give us a statement.

Now I wish to deal with one of the industries in South Africa which shows a favourable balance of trade for South Africa. It is an industry in which the Minister is interested, the hotel industry, and I know that at the annual congress of the Federated Hotel Association the President, Mr. Hoffman, paid tribute to the interest of the Minister. This is an industry of some R120,000,000, covering 1,500 hotels in South Africa. I am particularly interested in it, because my constituency has the largest number of hotels of any constituency in South Africa, and it also has the best hotels of any constituency in South Africa. The hon. member need not argue about that, the number of visitors to the beaches of Durban will establish that fact. But the industry as a whole is going through difficult times. The Bureau of Statistics recently quoted figures to indicate that although there has been an increase in beds from 62,000 to 68,500, the occupancy of those beds has dropped by 1,200,000 between 1952 and 1959. The occupancy dropped from 12,800,000 to 11,600,000 and the occupancy rate dropped from 56 per cent to 46 per cent. Apart from that, despite an increase of 60 per cent in tariffs, the net earnings of hotels dropped by 33 per cent between 1952 and 1958; a one-third reduction in the net earnings and a drop in profit margin from 10.8 per cent to 6.19 per cent. This is a serious situation because South Africa enjoys about 185,000 overseas visitors bringing some R40, 000,000 per year into South Africa, and each one of those visitors has to go through the hotels of South Africa. There have been numerous investigations. There was the 1943 Higgerty Commission, the 1949 Cape Town University Investigation, there was a Bill in 1951 which was dropped, and there was the Liquor Commission of 1956, the legislation for which we are still awaiting. But the problem remains, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to fall in with the suggestion of the Federated Hotel Association. They are trying to help themselves, and they have made a suggestion that a statutory body should be established to deal with their problems, following perhaps a prior investigation into the whole industry, an industry in which there are many employees, and an industry which is providing a public service to South Africa. The importance of the industry is recognized by the hon. the Minister of Finance in taxation proposals which help new hotels, but the older hotels are still facing many problems, problems of police interference—that is one of the major problems which they have to face; I have not the time and this is not the occasion to deal with that, but it is one of the major issues which could be to a large extent eliminated by a statutory body which would have an inspectorate which could lay down standards, which could recommend to licensing boards, and which could generally have the authority to co-ordinate and plan the affairs of the industry. Mr. Chairman, the value to South Africa of assistance to this industry in the economic field, can be tremendous, because nothing can do more to restore confidence in South Africa, apart from the necessity of a change of Government, than people from overseas coming here and seeing things for themselves. It would be worth a hundred state information offices if we could bring people to South Africa. It would not then be the so-called English Press and the newspapers that were frightening them—they could come and see for themselves …

What?

Perhaps see for themselves conditions in South Africa and the fact that it is only this Government which is the trouble and not the whole of South Africa. If they could come here they would see that it is only the Government members who are at the root of all our troubles, and that in South Africa a vast proportion of the people think clearly and stably, are not obsessed with ideologies, and will, when we become the Government, be able to correct and put right the evil which is now taking place.

It is almost in despair that I rise—in despair because the hon. member opposite and the party opposite have lost all sense of values and all sense of responsibility towards South Africa.

And of decency.

Yes, all sense of decency as well. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has made out a case and has pointed out that a United Party front-bencher whom the United Party often use as one of their main speakers on financial matters, their main Railway critic, is doing nothing but sabotage South Africa by the statements he has made. He is a man whose skin unfortunately for him is White, but whose heart is Black. Because what is he doing? Just listen. He has said—

The non-Whites have never found that they are subject to oppressive and cruel laws. This hon. member is planting that idea in their minds. By these means the United Party is instilling in the minds of the non-Whites the idea that they are being oppressed, that they are being treated cruelly. By these means the United Party with its Press is spreading reports that these people are collecting fuel so that they can commit arson. The non-Whites have not thought this up for themselves; it has been thought up by the agitators of the United Party which have a Press through which they can spread these stories. Do these people not realize that in what is in many instances their adolescent state, the non-Whites, when these ideas are thought up for them….

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

Mr. Chairman, hon. members say that the world has lost confidence in South Africa’s economy because the non-Whites are going to throw this country into chaos by means of arson, civil war, etc., and I place the responsibility for this position on the shoulders of the United Party and United Party speakers, and not an individual person, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, but, inter alia, a front bencher of the United Party, their main critic, and their Press which is giving worldwide prominence to such statements. These allegations are being spread throughout the world. And then they come and still ask that the world should have confidence in South Africa! What has the United Party ever done to make the world realize that we are not in the Congo, and to make the world realize that we are an orderly state and that investments in this country are safe and not in any danger? No, they should examine their own consciences and then they will be filled with shame.

I am very glad that import control is to be introduced. I want to express the hope, and I want to emphasize this point, that this import control will be so strict that it will give impetus to our own industrial development. In the past when we had to resort to import control, that import control has given us a shoe industry which has gained world renown and we have built up a fine industry. We can do the same in the case of this import control. By means of this import control we can also give an impetus to the essential border industrial development. And while I am referring to border industrial development, I want to say that it is essential that we should undertake this development and that we should do so in the correct way, not like hon. members opposite. When there is a border industry being developed which happens to be under the control of a few Afrikaners, then a great fuss is made, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did quite recently, but now that some English-speaking people also have border industry interests, they are silent. Why do hon. members not put forward an honest policy and ensure that South Africa’s economy can develop along the right lines in this regard?

There is another point which I should like to make. When the hon. the Minister by means of a special decision made a concession to the sugar farmers in South Africa, many people accused him of having done so for political reasons and in order to benefit political interests. I have the report on the increased allowances here, and when I examine this report, I find that the people who have benefited most, are the following: Amantimkulu: 80,777 tons; Umfolosi: 60,000 tons, and when I take a few of the others, I find that Renishaw, Sezele and Umzimkulu, which form one group, have received nearly 15,000 tons, and the same applies to other groups which have no political connections and no political colour. But while I am mentioning this point, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister does not consider that it has become essential that this whole matter should be investigated because there are so many anomalies in the determination of sugar quotas. I want to analyse these anomalies briefly. Dr. Rousseau, the former chairman of SASA, has stated that the Department of Lands asked for a quota of 1,000 tons of cane per person, and the industry refused. The industry refused in the case of Pongola and said that it was not an economic unit. And because the industry has refused, the central board eventually allocated 480 tons of sucrose, which is equivalent to 3,500 tons of cane. However, while one finds that, apart from Pongola, there are approximately another 200 farmers who are producing less than 3,000 tons and there is also a group of people at Pongola itself who are producing less than 2,000 tons, the quota is applied to all of them and these people are being prevented from developing to the economic margin of 3,000 or 3,500 tons of cane. The industry says: Yes, but this is the result of the equalization fund which pays the small producer a subsidy. But the small farmers also contribute to this equalization fund which was established as long ago as the 1940s. When we read Section 47 of the Act, we find that they contribute to the fund at the rate of 3s. 8d. per ton while the industry contributes £525,000 on the total annual yield. These funds are in turn paid out in terms of Schedules D and E and once again, in the case of these payments, we find that the industry regards 4,000 tons as the basis. A farmer who delivered less than 4,000 tons, received an additional 33d. in terms of Schedule D and another 33d. in terms of Schedule E, a total therefore of 5s. 6d. per ton. In other words, here the industry is once again laying down that that is an economic level, an economic unit. But as a result of the reductions being introduced, the Department is now reducing still further the economic unit which it has laid down itself, that is to say, it is introducing further reductions in respect of the group which produce 3,000 tons or less. That is why I ask, in view of the fact that the Department has laid down 3,500 tons or 4,000 tons of cane as the dividing line, whether it is not possible to have the position investigated so that this will also be the limit below which a quota should not be reduced. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) will excuse me if I don’t follow him in regard to the special point he raised at the end of his speech. In so far as the beginning was concerned, the House may judge whether it was a constructive contribution to the problem of exchange adjustment. But I wish to come to certain of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister this morning. In the first place he referred to the death of Dr. Frans du Toit, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all members on this side of the House if I say that we associate ourselves with him in the regret that South Africa has lost a good servant. It will be a comfort to those of his family who remain behind and those closely associated with him that he died in harness and in the service of South Africa. Secondly, I would like to say that I am sure that the business community of South Africa will appreciate the fact that the Minister as soon as possible has tried to give clarity in regard to the preference position vis-à-vis other nations of the Commonwealth, and the fact that he has clarity in respect of 99 per cent—I think that was the figure he gave—of our exports is a matter for satisfaction. I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that as soon as possible of course we would also like to know what the next step may be in that regard. But I think at this stage it is a little too early to ask for details in that regard.

I regretted in the Minister’s remarks that he implied that if any change in policy in this country were contemplated in regard to improving world relations in respect of their attitude to our race problems, there was no alternative between the policy of the Government and what the Afro-Asian nations wish. I suggest in saying that, he said something that he himself knows is an over-simplification. There is no question that if South Africa gave a definite indication that it was moving away from racial discrimination, were it only in the economic sphere, a very great change would take place in the feelings of the rest of the world towards us, and the overt declaration of feeling they could make towards us. But I wish to take up a remark of the hon. the Minister himself, although strictly it should come under the Vote of the Minister of Labour. The Minister said this: “The Union has a large labour potential.” This was in an interview he gave to the Transvaler in July last year. He said—

In regard to the question of labour peace, that is more appropriate under the Vote of the Minister of Labour. With regard to the question of a better utilization of our labour resources, I would like to say something to the hon. the Minister because he has accused this side of not making positive contributions in this debate. In regard to the question as to which industries under the new export control should be protected and encouraged and on which raw materials the emphasis should be laid, the Minister knows the difficulties as well as I do, and he has the Board of Trade and Industries to advise him; he will also get representations from every quarter from commerce and industry. All I would ask there is that he should apply very strict criteria, because he knows as well as I do that one of our great difficulties is that we are greatly dependent on the outside world for the raw materials of our industries and semi-processed material. There are a number of industries while they can produce for our needs, they can only produce a proportion of our needs and protection in those cases is difficult. But I leave that aside, because there are enough experts to deal with that matter in representations submitted to him in future. What I would like to say is that he should carefully consider, with his colleague, the Minister of Labour who I am happy to say is in the House, the question of what those words mean “the better utilization of our labour resources”, because it is becoming clear to all of us that in respect of the technical work of our country the White population is becoming too small to supply either the lower skilled labour and even some of the administrative workers without placing an almost unbearable burden on that section of the community. So from that economic angle there is a great case for giving greater opportunities than has been given in the past. The Minister says that the policy won’t be changed. In the light of that I am not advocating here, although I would like to advocate it, a gradual abolition of the colour bar. But I do beseech the hon. the Minister to give very careful consideration, with his colleague, to the modification of the present colour bar provisions in the laws of the Union of South Africa with a view to giving greater opportunities and to making better use of the labour resources that we have, because it is now no longer just a question of trying to protect one group against another, negative as that approach has been, but a question of getting enough ability to run the machine, which surely is important if our object is to expand and to raise the standard of living not only of the existing population but of the many mouths that are to come.

What colour bar are you referring to?

I am not talking about the statutory colour bar which only exists in the Mines and Works Legislation. What I am dealing with is that kind of colour discrimination which exists in respect of job reservation, which is a matter of trying to save one section at the expense of others. If it does not mean that, it does not mean anything at all, because you cannot possibly benefit all by trying to save this section or that section. The object of the Government should be to educate the whole labour force of the country, which I think is ripe for consideration at the present time, because the trade unions themselves are beginning to see the necessity of the education of the working people of South Africa as a whole. The labour organizations begin to see that these things can be modified safely without detriment to themselves, instead of emphasizing all the time that their only hope of safety and their future economic life lies on the basis of discrimination. That is the criticism I make of the Government in this sphere that it is always following that part of public opinion which is governed by a short-term fear, that the Government never endeavours to lead the people of South Africa away from conceptions which in the long run are damaging to the economy of South Africa. The case of the Government is that if you give an inch in that direction you end up in giving an ell and that it leads to the end of the technical control of the White man who at this present moment is the only group with sufficient technicians to run the country. But I want to say that in existing circumstances that concept has to be changed, not because the outside world is pressing upon us, not because we should bow to the Afro-Asian nations or because of what might be said at Prime Ministers’ Conferences but because the future of South Africa demands it. If the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House say there are things more important than economics I will agree with them, and one of the things more important is justice —but I mention that only in passing. I will admit that there are things more important than economics, but ultimately if you do not have a basis of economics on which to live then you cannot carry out any of the higher objectives that you have. And if the White man believes indefinitely in the economic sphere or any other sphere that he can save himself at the expense of others, then he is deluding himself. We either save all or we save none, and that should be sufficiently clear to hon. members in the situation in which South Africa finds itself to-day.

That is what we want to do, save all.

What I want is that the Government gradually—and I say the Government because they have the power in their hands and I know I cannot convince them however eloquent I might be—I want the Government to change their policies absolutely. But I appeal to them to show, both for the sake of the practical future of South Africa and for South Africa’s good name in the outside world, that they will begin to consider the merits of a man rather than the colour of a man’s skin as the opening for opportunity in our economic life.

I know that this is difficult. I know that there will be dangers in the way of it. But they will be nothing like the dangers that face it if we persist in this idea that we will continually fight, not for White civilization but for White privilege. [Time limit.]

I wish to talk about a few allies which commerce and industry and the workers have, and I do so because of a certain question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I want to talk about the Bureau of Standards which, in my opinion, plays a very big rôle in the country’s industrial life to-day. In these times of mass production, of surpluses and increasing competition there are two things which are of very great importance. The first is that quality should be produced, and secondly it should be produced at the right prices. Standardization is very essential because it is conducive to simplification in respect of production processes, and the simpler the production process is the cheaper the article concerned can be delivered to a competitive market. Standardization also results in essential characteristics on which the producer can then base his production processes. One has the effects of standardization in everyday life. The watch at which one looks, the lift in which one rides, the electricity which is switched on, all these are based on processes of standardization. The whole world has become conscious of standardization. The country’s entire economy already depends on the pillar of standardization. Trade missions go abroad with that in mind. They offer South Africa’s articles on the overseas market, and the body which guarantees it is the Bureau of Standards because their stamp on it is evidence of quality and durability. That makes it possible for us to find markets.

I must talk with the greatest praise about the Bureau of Standards which falls under the C.S.I.R. South Africa possesses one of the best standardization organizations in the world. The South African Bureau of Standards is one of the first in the world to have testing laboratories and they have already done valuable work. They have already advised the Government, the Provincial Administrations and the Tender Board of the Railways and have given advice as to what to buy and what is the best quality and by so doing they have saved the country a lot of money. At the moment they possess 37 of the finest laboratories in the world. Other world organizations, like the British Standardization Organization and those in Israel and India, copied the prescriptions and models which South Africa adopted. It has promoted South Africa’s trade tremendously. South Africa’s Bureau of Standards remains in continuous contact with those overseas through the International Organization of Standards. This process of standardization, the policy of standardizing in order to produce the best quality at the lowest price, has already meant much to South Africa on the world market. I think, for example, of South Africa’s fish industry, the canning industry in respect of fish, in respect of crayfish, in respect of meat. South Africa has conquered the world market with fish, she has taken first place on the British market with her canned fruits. She has stabilized her meat canning industry through the good work done by the Bureau of Standards, through their inspectorate and because South Africa remains in constant touch with the best processing methods based on the most modern scientific foundations.

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible, on the same basis as that on which the Bureau of Standards operate, to gradually establish one or more agricultural testing stations in the country which could recommend the best quality and the best process through scientific tests so that farmers may purchase their implements and their traction power on the advice of those testing stations. It could be incorporated in one body or another but I am advocating the same principle. I can tell the hon. the Minister—and I know he is aware of it—that there are millions of pounds’ worth of implements lying under the trees and in the barns on the farms which the farmers bought when mechanization was started and which are to-day useless. Millions of pounds are wasted because of the lack of guidance in the purchasing of the expensive implements necessary for production. I regard this as one of the contributing factors to the increase in production costs of certain agricultural commodities. I advocate this principle. I have only the highest praise for the Bureau of Standards because they mean so much to us and their results have been so beneficial I advocate the same principle for agriculture. I think that the trade missions which have now gone overseas have a valuable ally in the Bureau of Standards which endorses the quality which they offer. It gives confidence. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to think along these lines and at some stage or other also to give the agricultural producer similar advice and approval in respect of guaranteed quality so that when the farmers buy they can buy the right thing cheaply. It will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister would consider this favourably.

I wish to associate myself with the sorrow and the condolence expressed by the hon. the Minister in connection with the tragic death of Mr. Frans du Toit. I have had the honour and privilege of knowing Mr. du Toit as a colleague and a friend during the past 25 years and I probably realize more than hon. members in this House do what a loss it was, not only to his family but also to South Africa, that a person like Mr. du Toit, when he was still at the height of his physical and mental powers, should pass away in such a tragic way in a far distant country.

I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister right at the start. He put a question to us which surprised me, namely whether we accept Mr. Macmillan’s statement of “equality of opportunity” for all human beings. I have always been under the impression that it was also the policy of the hon. members opposite. Does the hon. the Minister by that question mean that he does not accept it? Because I have always understood from the hon. the Prime Minister that the policy of the National Party was also “equality of opportunity”—equal opportunities for all human beings. It is, of course, true that the Government, through the mechanism with which it wants to achieve it, has a method which in my opinion is an escape mechanism. They say that all non-White persons will have equal opportunities, not now but at some time or other in the future and in one sphere or other where they would then have equal opportunities among each other. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is announcing to the world that he does not believe in the principle of “equality of opportunity”.

Do you believe in it?

Of course we believe in it.

Do you then believe in the abolition of the colour bar?

I will come to that now. The hon. the Minister must not run ahead of me. I must ask the hon. the Minister of Transport whether he does not believe in it.

Not under the present conditions.

Then it is no wonder that we have landed in the mess in which we find ourselves in this world. In the rest of the world it is accepted in all civilized countries, both in the communist and in the Western civilizations, that all persons are entitled to equal opportunities and that every person is entitled to develop his abilities and character to the utmost of his ability. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has put the same question as the hon. the Minister of Transport has just done. He asked whether we now wanted to submit to the demands of the Afro-Asian states, because he says that is all that will satisfy the world, namely the principle of one man, one vote—of absolute equality. But this is not what Western civilization expects from us. They realize that when there are special circumstances in a country like South Africa one cannot immediately switch over to one man, one vote.

Where do you hear that?

That is simply not the demand which the West makes on us. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred to the speeches of the Prime Ministers in England and to that of Mr. Sandys. Permit me to read to him what the hon. the Prime Minister of England said. Mr. Macmillan said—

There we have leaders like Smuts and Botha who did not immediately agree to equality and the abolition of all discrimination, and their policy was accepted by the West. It is, of course, the propaganda which the National Party is continually making to win the electorate over to their side, namely that the alternative for apartheid is a policy of equality, which will naturally destroy civilization just as surely as apartheid will do it in the long run. I also want to refer to what Mr. Sandys said. He stated very clearly that the West did not expect equality immediately; they do not expect political equality immediately. He says this—

The previous speaker said how important standardization is in life. I want to suggest that standardization with the rest of the world is just as important as standardization in regard to industrial products and agricultural products. The speaker before him said that it was this side of the House that had lost its perspective. Who has lost perspective in South Africa? Is it not the hon. members opposite? They go against the entire line of thought of the world, not only that of the Western world but also that of the communist world which simply no longer believes in discrimination as such as a policy.

The hon. the Minister also asked me why I do not argue about economic facts and why I always confine myself to the question of the racial policy of the Government. That is because the Government’s racial policy in a system of private initiative, such as we have, is destroying all confidence in South Africa in the long run. It is no use politicians opposite having confidence and believing in South Africa. It is a question of the investors here and the investors overseas. There cannot be economic progress unless the investors can be made to believe that the policy of the country will in the long run preserve our civilization, the businesses and the economic system in which they share. Unless they have that assurance they will not invest. My whole point is that one must start at the beginning. If we want to regain the confidence of private initiative, we must in the first instance create confidence among the investors, overseas investors or our own investors. If the Government does not concern itself with the confidence of the investors, South Africa should have an entirely different economic system from that of private investment. Then the Government itself will have to take over the function of making investments. Is that what the hon. the Minister wants to enforce upon us?

The hon. the Minister has given us examples of overseas capital which has not always been to the welfare of the country. He said that there have been certain abuses, but then one cannot condemn overseas investors merely because there have been abuses.

I did not condemn it.

What did the hon. the Minister mean then by saying that foreign investments are not always good? With his policy the hon. the Minister can prevent those practices which he does not like. If there are abuses he can take steps to prevent it. The hon. the Minister mentioned the example of overseas investors who only take up a small share of their capital in South Africa and who then take the rest of the money and then send dividends overseas on a large scale. I agree that there have been singular cases of this nature in the past but in relation to the total overseas investments this is the exception. I want to go further and say that if those people really have confidence in the progress of South Africa they will not send all their dividends overseas but will invest here. The fact of the matter is that, economically speaking, South Africa is one of the best fields of investment in the world. It is only a matter of regaining confidence. It is merely a matter of restoring confidence and therefore we must start from the beginning. What is it that destroys the confidence of the investor in our country? It is the racial policy of the Government through which no overseas investor, and many local investors, can see civilization as we know it being maintained in the long run —in spite of all the claims of hon. members opposite. [Time limit.]

I listened very attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down. He has repeated that the racial policy of the Government is destroying all confidence in South Africa. If the racial policy destroys all confidence then I wonder what will happen to the country one day when there is no racial policy. We have just seen the disastrous results in the Belgian Congo where the White man will eventually disappear. There is total chaos there. If we had no racial policy, if we did not have a policy to ensure the survival of the White man here, then the hon. member would be right. Then there would not be any confidence in South Africa. It is only if the survival of the White man is assured here that overseas investors will have confidence and will be prepared to invest here. If we did not want a racial policy then I am afraid that all would be lost. Only a racial policy such as exists at the moment can guarantee that position.

But, Mr. Chairman, I particularly rose as a result of what the hon. the Minister announced in connection with restrictions on the importation of motor cars. I agree wholeheartedly with him when he says that the motor trade, of which I have some knowledge, has been struggling in the past few years. The importation of new cars into the country has been allowed too freely and there are nearly 100,000 new motor cars in the showrooms to-day. Second-hand cars have completely overwhelmed the market. There is no price for second-hand cars to-day. I therefore welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is imposing reasonably strict limitations on the importation of cars.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) spoke about Japanese cars. That is probably a solution. None of us would really welcome new makes at this stage. But there is a strong possibility that Japan may become a good buyer of South African wool and by introducing an exchange scheme it may just be possible to build up a good trade with Japan.

Then I come to the establishment of new factories. I wonder if it would be the right thing to allow too many small industries, especially in the motor industry. One may find that the established people may then not be able to perform their work as it should be done. Experience in all spheres of commerce and industry has shown that where there is no large established company or firm, that company can progress much further and produce much more cheaply than a series of small ones.

Another matter of importance in the motor trade is that the marketing of big and heavy cars is very difficult to-day. I think that the importation of smaller cars will have to be controlled a little more strictly and that a certain percentage of the currency allocated should be spent on big cars. It is not an article which is easily disposed of. Certain parts of the country are not suited to the small car and therefore the importation of big cars must be allowed to some extent. With these few words I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for these restrictions, especially with a view to the second-hand trade. Here in Cape Town there are hundreds of thousands of cars standing in large blocks and there is no market for them. A limitation on the importation of new cars will do much towards placing the garage owner and the motor dealer in a sound position again.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) expressed his pleasure at the steps taken by the hon. the Minister in regard to import control on motor-cars. He also expressed his pleasure at the import control on smaller cars. Sir, my mind goes back to an incident in Cape Town when I was about ten years old. I was one day in the company of two or three adults who were talking about the various makes of cars and where they were made, and I in my innocence asked which one was a South African car. And one of them turned to me and said, “No my boy, this is a little tin-pot country as far as the manufacture of cars is concerned”. That man is dead to-day and I have lived to see South African cars produced in this country. But there is a story I would like to tell this Committee as far as that is concerned, a story of three young South African men by the names of Meissner, Van Niekerk and de Wit.

These three South Africans took their degrees at the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch and then went to Europe for further study. They worked there and came back convinced that South Africa could produce a motor-car. These three young men set to work, designed and actually manufactured a South African car. It was manufactured of South African raw material to the extent of 59y per cent. Well, Sir, the position is that what I did live to see was a report in our newspapers such as the following—

This was a report in the Star in 1959—

I may say, Sir, that this was after a race in Johannesburg in which 28 cars took part. This South African car is not a racing car, it is a sports car, but there were cars such as the Maserati, the M.G., the Porsche, Alfa-Romeo and Austin Healeys, and this South African car won the race. The comment on that was—

One would think that after such an accomplishment on the part of these young South Africans there would be some form of assistance, some way in which they could turn to the authorities to assist them in getting further with their project. Because it stands to reason that it would take a great deal of initial capital to establish a factory where such a motor-car could be manufactured for marketing. But the position was that eventually after exploring all avenues they possibly could they had to turn to private investors. And as far as the private investors are concerned—and we know this from our own experience—the attitude was “manufacture the car, market it and show us your profits and we might be interested”. That unfortunately was the attitude they met everywhere, and by this time they had exhausted their initial capital, which was limited, and in the circumstances in which they found themselves they could not possible compete with combines like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The position was that on the parts they imported they had to pay the same import duties as any other big car builder like Ford, General Motors and Chrysler in their assembly plants here. But when this motor-car with 59½ per cent of South African material in it was completed, it was weighed and they had to pay the full excise duty on the weight of the car, just as the manufacturer who assembles his car in South Africa after importing all the parts.

It was found that as a result of red tape, as a result of the fact that no relief was granted from these taxes in their case, they were unable to continue, and it was a sad day when I read in the newspapers, “South African-built car goes to United Kingdom to-day”. This is actually a case where a South African in France bought one of these South African manufactured cars in the Union and had it shipped to him. The appearance of that car in Europe had further repercussions and the upshot was that investors in England had enough confidence in that motor-car to put up the money and a factory was opened for its manufacture in England. And one feels proud of the fact that when three of these cars earlier this year were put on the World Motor Show in New York, by Gallup poll on the Concourse d’Elegance, a Jaguar costing £3,200 came first, a Mercedes costing over £5,000 came third and the Dart built in South Africa and costing only £870 came second.

Hear, hear!

The result was that immediately, on the American market, an order was placed to the tune of R320,000 for these South African cars. The next order came from Germany, of all places, where you can say you find the epitome of sports cars, and that was an order for 160 cars. They were not able to comply with that order and asked that it be staggered over 12 months.

In the same newspaper where this was reported—“R320,000 order from United States for South African made cars”—in the column next to that there is a heading “Government to clamp down on petrol”. It says—

Here you have for the first time in the history of South Africa a motor-car which could be manufactured and sold in South Africa and also exported to the United States and Germany. But what do we find due to restrictions, due to red tape, due to lack of assistance; these young men had to go to England. The parent company is still in South Africa as a skeleton organization manufacturing a few cars just to keep going and so that they can abide by their loyalties to South Africa and market this car in the United States as a South African car built in England.

That is Irish.

That is true. It is a South African car built in England. But if they fold up here it becomes a totally British company and the name South Africa will be wiped off that motor-car.

There are plans being completed for the development of a family sports saloon. But I can tell you now, Mr. Chairman, in the interests of this House and in the interests of the country that if such enterprises do not receive the assistance of the Government of the day or of private capital in South Africa, from people who should have enough confidence in the country, then even that latter part will be lost to South Africa. And this new car that is being designed will be lost to South Africa and will be manufactured elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I have a personal interest in this matter in this sense, that I represent in this House the Coloured people, and it has been found time and again by the bigger factories such as Chrysler, Rootes at Blackheath near Cape Town, and others, that the Coloured people are the most effective labour force when it comes to motor-car building and assembly. Apart from the dollars that this would have earned us, apart from the employment it would afford, what would it not mean to the prestige of South Africa if we could have built those motor-cars here; cars that are actually being marketed on demand in the United States and Germany, of all places? This morning the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) talked about the trade balance as far as Germany was concerned. Here was an article that we could have exported to Germany and that could compete with Porsche in Germany, that could compete with Mercedes in Germany. And yet we have lost that opportunity.

I hope that this little story I was able to tell this Committee will be an inducement in the future for this Government to prevent such things from happening. I hope it will encourage enterprising young men with intelligence and ability to follow what these young men did, and to retain their brains and their workmanship and their products for South Africa and in the interests of South African prestige.

I am pleased to see that hon. members opposite are so enthusiastic about the building of our own South African motor-car and I hope they will appreciate the steps that I will have to take in future to encourage the building of such a car. The story which the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has told us is very interesting and we are proud to know that two South Africans have built such a car but the story is not quite as simple as he put it. I can assure hon. members that my Department willingly granted them all the permits which they asked for. It is not the function of my Department to supply the capital for the erection of factories. Other concerns see to that. As far as the question of exemption from excise duty is concerned, the hon. member as a Member of Parliament ought to know that we have not got the power to give exemption from excise duty in such cases, and that it is not merely according to our own legislation that we cannot do so, but according to international agreements, and that according to G.A.T.T. regulations it is not possible where a duty has been imposed or where certain tariffs have been increased, to give exemption from excise duty.

Not even in the case of the finished product?

No. I want to return to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). He rose again and he should rather not have done so because now he has not only put his one foot into it but both feet. The hon. member says that he believes in “equality of opportunity”. Is that the policy of his party?

Answer!

If the hon. member does not wish to reply to that question, I want to ask him whether he is in favour of it that the traditional colour bar should be abolished in the gold mining industry?

Answer!

Is the hon. member prepared to give “equal opportunities” to the Whites and the non-Whites in the gold mining industry?

Do you want to maintain it in perpetuity?

The hon. member has put one foot into it and he is unable to extricate either himself or his party and we must take it that they are in favour of the abolition of the colour bar in the mining industry and elsewhere.

The second point raised by the hon. member was that world opinion and Mr. Macmillan did not want equality immediately; all he wants is “the intention of moving to this end”. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) said the same thing, but in his case you can understand it, Sir. He spoke about “moving away from racial discrimination”. The two are getting close together. The hon. member for Musgrave says, “We must be moving away from discrimination,” and the hon. member for Jeppes says …

Does the hon. the Minister agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Nationalist Party did not stand for racial discrimination?

Thank you, I shall come to that. That is the point where the two meet. The hon. member for Musgrave says we should only show signs of “moving away from racial discrimination”, and the hon. member for Jeppes says we should only give an indication that we are “moving to the end of complete equality”. He says the world does not say we must do so immediately; we should merely indicate that we are willing to go in that direction, away from discrimination towards equality. Is that the policy of the United. Party to-day?

He did not say that.

Will the hon. member tell me what he did say?

I merely quoted what Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Sandys had said.

To which you subscribe.

The hon. member said we should accept world opinion; the world does not have confidence in our economy and the only way to gain the confidence of the world is to accept world opinion as far as our colour policy is concerned. I said that was complete equality and the hon. member said I was wrong, the world did not ask for complete equality immediately, but merely for “an intention of moving to that end”.

The hon. the Minister is putting words into my mouth. May I ask one question? If you really believe that apartheid can be carried out, why do you not accept it?

The National Party maintain that they are the party that will ultimately move in the direction of abolishing discrimination but not in the same area, the Whites in their area and the Blacks in theirs. You, however, want equality in the same area.

The hon. member for Jeppes made one very dangerous statement that I want to repudiate immediately. In answer to a question of mine, he said that I condemned foreign investment. I deny having said that. On two or three occasions during my speech I distinctly said that I welcomed foreign investment and that I would encourage it and that I have encouraged it because we needed it, but I said that we should be realistic and I pointed out that there were certain dangers attached to it and that we should not lose sight of those dangers. I want this to go on record because this is something that will be misrepresented overseas. I definitely deny having said it.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) raised the question of standardizing agricultural implements. I merely want to say that we have a very high regard for the Bureau of Standards and that we should all move in the direction of greater standardization and that specifications in respect of purchases overseas should be better compiled than they are to-day. We shall certainly think along the lines indicated by him and I think it will be a good thing if the agricultural unions jointly make such a suggestion to the Bureau of Standards. I may just say that the Bureau cannot put its mark on imported articles, but it may inspect imported articles at the request of the merchant or the consumer.

I want to say to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) that question of sugar is a very comprehensive and difficult one but that we are giving it our serious attention. Then we have the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I am very sorry for the hotel industry if they have to follow his recipe to solve their problems, because as I understand it that recipe says that United Party should sit in the government benches. In that case they will still have to wait a very long time. I want to tell him that we are very interested in the hotel industry. The hon. member can rest assured that he did not give those figures in vain. We are au fait with the position and the Department is genuinely interested in the industry. We regard it as an important industry, not only from the point of view of providing employment and an avenue for capital investment, but also from the point of view of the tourist industry. Our difficulty of course, is that most of the problems which beset the hotel industry fall completely outside my Department. They concern Bantu Administration, Labour, Justice and Finance, etc., but I can assure him that if I have the time I shall give my personal and serious attention to the industry and in co-operation with the other Departments I shall try to see how their problems can be solved.

The hon. member also asked me what the position was in connection with the textile industry and what the effect of the curtailment would be on the industry and on the trade. I can tell him this briefly. At the moment textiles appear on the free list. Textile piece-goods can be imported freely and without permits. What we are now doing is to place textile piece-goods on the list of goods for which a permit is required in order to import them. Raw material can only be imported on a permit. We are placing it on the same list as raw material for which a permit is required. But as in the case of raw materials we shall ensure that there is no shortage. Permits will be issued according to the availability of local materials, but we shall always guard against shortages, and textile goods that are not manufactured in this country in particular will be treated very generously on a quota basis.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Vote No. 34 (Mines).

On Vote No. 34.—“Mines”, R7,256,000,

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it will be necessary for arrangements to be made for more time to be made available for Votes such as this in future, because I believe that it is a very important matter in the economy of this country, and means must be found. It may be that it is due to the increase in the number of Ministers and that perhaps the over-all time for discussion in Committee should be increased, but I do think the matter should receive attention.

I wish to raise just two important points with the Minister. Firstly, I wish to discuss with him again the question of the areas which have developed and on which the growth of this country’s economy in the past has very largely depended. I refer to the areas where there was enormous mineral wealth and where the mines are now being worked out and coming to an end. My own constituency for many years produced a big proportion of the gold and was the district which produced the greatest amount of gold, and it was also a very big contributor in respect of uranium. Fortunately, it is not as badly placed as some other areas, but it is serious that one of the mines in the Springs area will close down within the foreseeable future, possibly within a year or two, and that there are other mines which are nearing the end of their lives. It became obvious to Springs long ago and to other towns on the East Rand that there was only one way of maintaining the prosperity of the communities which had been built up there, and that was through the development of industry, and certain of the towns took a lead, and in Germiston, Boksburg, Benoni and Springs great progress has been made and they have made an enormous contribution to the economy of this country through the development of industries of inestimable value to the country. It is obvious that the industries which are now established there and the areas available for industry are not what are required in order to maintain the prosperity of those towns as other mines become worked out. I would like to ask the Minister to look after the interests of those towns in relation to this matter. He as the Minister of Mines bears a very special responsibility. We know that the Government has announced a policy of development of other areas on the borders of the reserves, a policy of the decentralization of industry. I think that everyone will agree that the decentralization of industry on a sound economic basis is in the future interests of South Africa. There is no dispute about that. I believe that the Minister can do something for these areas and I beg him to do so.

What can be done is this. It is obvious that in order to establish industries it will be much easier in these times, when it is urgent to raise the income of the country, that a larger number of industries should not be driven away from these areas which have dying mines, but that there should be active Government encouragement to bring industry to these areas, and here the hon. the Minister can seek the co-operation of the Minister of Bantu Administration. Very often there is not enough ground available for big industries, but the important factor is this. Obviously it is much easier to encourage industries to come to areas where there is already adequate housing for the workers, because on balance it will save an expenditure of £4,000 per European employed in that industry. A heavy responsibility rests on the Minister to persuade his colleagues that there should be a policy of active encouragement by the Government for the establishment of further industries in these areas in order to ensure that they will remain prosperous as the mines fall away. The Minister, who knows the Rand, will know that this is not the case at present. If all the new industries are drawn off to other areas there will be additional cost. Obviously they can come into production very much earlier if they are in these established areas. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is not only in respect of housing that industries can be established much more cheaply in these areas. It is obvious that the water supplies which are available will not be required in the years that lie ahead and therefore there is adequate water available already, and secondly at immense expenditure adequate electrical power has already been provided. The submission I make is this, that in the best interests of South Africa one of the priorities should be the maintenance of the economic health of these areas which have contributed so much to the well-being of this country, by ensuring that additional industries are drawn to those areas, which is not to the detriment of other areas. Obviously, if we can raise the general level of income and the standard of living in the country, it will have a material effect on spreading industries to other areas. But unlike starting in other areas from scratch and having to provide water, housing and electricity, these services are already there and consequently the industries should come into production much earlier. I hope the Minister will assure the House that this problem will have his sympathy and that of the Government, and I go so far as to express the hope that the Minister will give an assurance to the House on behalf of the Government that they will see to it that through Government policy nothing will be done which in any way interferes with the future economic health of these areas where the mines are slowly dying. I do not think it is necessary to carry that matter any further, but I would like to deal with one other matter.

I know there is a Bill before the House dealing with air pollution, but one of the most serious matters affecting the health of people on the Rand is the presence of dust. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the old cyanide dumps which are now drying up are pulverizing into a fine dust which is dangerous to health. I know that this matter has received the attention of his Department. I merely wish to pay a tribute to those who have been concerned. I know that the Government, the Chamber of Mines and particular mining groups have been concerned to seek ways of covering these old dumps and that great progress has been made. I hope the Minister will give the House the assurance that he will do everything possible to ensure that these old residues, from which the Government has had enormous revenue, will be covered up, because then we can maintain the health of the people, as well as the economic strength of these areas which must be maintained if we are to preserve the economic health of South Africa. It would be a very serious thing if through Government policy and the drawing away of industries, apart from preventing the establishment of new industries in this area, we found that there was a surplus of housing, and the situation has already arisen in certain areas where it is very difficult to find buyers for houses, simply because the population is being drawn away. The Government has a special responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. [Time limit.]

I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that I am pleasantly surprised and grateful to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) for his objective speech and for raising the important matter of low-grade gold mines. In the short time at my disposal I want to refer to a committee which was appointed by the Government in 1957 in an attempt to do everything possible for the so-called marginal mines.

That Committee found that of the 28 big gold mines on the Rand 14 fell under the so-called vulnerable marginal mines. Those 14 marginal mines produced no less than 11.5 per cent of the country’s gold in 1960. Those mines during the past year provided work for nearly 8,400 Whites and 73,000 non-Whites. The Committee’s further finding in 1957 was that these marginal mines which suffered most could probably be relieved of a certain amount of expenditure. The Committee submitted a comprehensive report and, to be brief, the relief measures that they investigated were divided as follows: (a) Railway transport costs, (b) the costs of Government training schools for mine workers, (c) hospital treatment for the Bantu, (d) pneumoconiosis levies, (e) sewage and sanitary fees, (g) municipal rates and taxes, (h) buying costs from the Reserve Bank, and (i) shipping costs on gold. After an intensive investigation the Committee decided that it was possible, as a result of favourite balances in the pneumoconiosis compensation fund, to give virtually total relief in respect of item (d) of about 13s. 7d. per ton of milled ore. Relief in respect of the other items was not found practicable, or was found to be too minute in effect to be of any practicable value. Now, in the critical period in which those mines find themselves to-day, I respectfully want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government whether it is not possible again to institute an investigation or to grant further relief in regard to those other items—relief was given only in the case of item (d). I make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister because of the position in which the mines find themselves because of the fact that they still play an important rôle and because the possibility of an increase in the price of gold is not entirely excluded; and further because these marginal mines contributed 11.5 per cent towards South Africa’s record export of gold of £292,000,000 in 1959 and because mines mean so much to the country economically. As the representative of a constituency on the East Rand I am fully aware of and appreciate what the Government has already done for these mines, but since the livelihood of so many workers depends on those 14 mines, and particularly in view of the fact that many of the new mines on the Free State goldfields and on the Far East Rand have reached the stage of production where they will be making substantial contribution towards the treasury, I want to appeal to the Government and to the hon. the Minister to have the position of those marginal mines thoroughly investigated again. I ask this in particular because there are oudstryders in the mining industry—“old-timers” as we call them—who are of the opinion that there is enough gold left in those mines to justify their continued existence. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government has instituted a comprehensive investigation in the past, in collaboration with the mines, to see what possibility there is of encouraging their production potential still further so as to ensure their continued existence.

I wish to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I do so in the knowledge that our legislation in respect of compensation for industrial diseases is a model, a model which might well be used and copied by the world. But in saying that I do not want to imply that the legislation is perfect and it is in connection with the implementation of this Act that I wish to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The mineworker, as you know, is entitled to compensation after it has been determined by a physical and X-ray examination that he is suffering from miners’ phthisis or pneumoconiosis. Pneumoconiosis is a disease which in the first place affects the breathing organs, and the damage which it causes to the mineworker is that it ruins his heart-lung functions and thereby impairs his working ability. When a person is found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis then he is classified as follows: If he can still perform normal work then he is a first-stage sufferer; if he can do moderate work then he is a second-stage sufferer; if he can do light work then he is a third-stage sufferer; and if he cannot work any longer then he is a fourth-stage sufferer. This group classification reveals such a subjective approach that I cannot believe that it can be based on scientific foundations. My experience has often brought me in contact with mineworkers, two of whom would appear to be equally sick to the layman while the one is classified as a second-stage suffer and the other as a third-stage sufferer. Just recently I visited a third-stage sufferer in hospital in Virginia and two days before his death he reproachfully told me that a week earlier he was still classified as a third-stage sufferer. I wonder if a more scientific method cannot be found to determine to what extent the disease has impaired the mine workers’ working ability. To me it is such an abstract matter to determine to what extent a person’s working ability has been impaired. It contains an element of speculation or guess-work. I do not want to minimize the findings and the good intentions of the certification committee or paint it in a bad light but I am simply raising this matter to give the mineworkers the fullest satisfaction and to create a spirit of confidence and to remove every vestige of suspicion in their minds. I do not want to plead for the re-introduction of an Appeal Board for which provision was made in the Act prior to 1956. Many arguments can be advanced against it. We appreciate that one medical body cannot lightly veto the findings of another, especially if those findings, in my opinion, are based on estimates or guess-work. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to provide for the appointment of a committee to review cases where there is doubt or dissatisfaction—call it a committee of revision if you like—which can refer deserving cases back for re-examination and re-consideration. That should do away with the suspicion with which the findings of the certification committee are regarded at present and at the same time it can exercise effective control over the certification committee.

Just one more matter, and this concerns the pneumoconiosis compensation fund. The fund is made up of contributions originally made by the mineworker, the Chamber of Mines and the Government and it now stands at about R60,000,000. The interest on these funds plus the levies imposed on the mines from year to year provide the revenue from which the pneumoconiosis sufferer is compensated. Each mine’s levies are determined on a formula which I do not want to deal with now because it is a complicated matter, but what stimulates my interest is the fact that the actuarial estimate of the responsibility of the compensation fund showed inexplicable surpluses during the past two years, inexplicable if it is taken into consideration that the number of people certified did not decrease considerably and that the number of pensioners has remained fairly constant. The surpluses were such that it was laid down that the A-group mines should pay a current levy of R1,600,000 for the past year and in reality no levy was imposed on them the following year because the surplus was so great. This can only mean one of two things, namely that the working conditions in the mines have improved to such an extent that the incidence of pneumoconiosis has been reduced to a minimum; this contention, however, is disproved by the consistent number of pensioners still drawing pensions. Furthermore, the improvement in the working conditions and the preventive plans and methods could have brought about such a revolutionary saving in contributions over such a short period. I therefore ask whether the hon. the Minister will not consider the desirability of reviewing the position of the pneumoconiosis compensation fund and also the basis on which levies are determined.

Like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) I must also express my disappointment that so little time is given to this Vote. I would remind the Committee that almost 750,000 people find employment in this industry and the revenue derived from mining is almost R2,000,000 per day. Whenever our economy is discussed, and whenever we speak about the solidarity of our economy, we always back that up by saying how wonderful our mines are, what wonderful production they give and what wonderful service they render this country. Yet when this Vote comes up for discussion we find a handful of members present and very few Ministers ever come in to listen, and the debate on the Vote is cut to a shocking degree. I hope that in future we will have much more time available to discuss the important matters that arise under this Vote.

It was my intention to go into the question of pneumoconiosis this afternoon in detail, but with the time at my disposal now I can only mention the points that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister.

When we speak about the mineworker and the welfare of the mineworker, his health, his wage structure and his pension schemes, the whole set-up depends on whether or not the pneumoconiosis bureau is going to do its job properly. I feel certain that as things are at the moment they are doing their very best for the mineworker, but is that good enough? I have seen and read most of the papers that were presented to the conference in 1959 on pneumoconiosis at the Witwatersrand University. I have studied them carefully and minutely and I have come to the conclusion that there is no basis whatever for the bureau to sub-divide their pneumoconiosis patients as they are doing to-day. To some extent I agree with the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk). Three years ago I mentioned this aspect of stages in this House, and I was rapped over the knuckles by the then Minister, Dr. van Rhyn. He thought I was sabotaging the medical profession because I criticized the findings of the bureau. I can tell this Committee that it is impossible to be accurate in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis in any of its stages. We learned last year from some of the figures given by the hon. member for Springs that in 54 cases the diagnosis at the post-mortem differed from the diagnosis given by the bureau. Sir, we have to realize that the economy of the country depends on the mineworker to-day and I want him to get a fair deal. When that man comes up for examination at the bureau I want him to get the benefit of the doubt every time. If there is any doubt as to the stage in which he should be classified. I say to the Minister that he should use his influence and see that the miner is classified in a higher category. The miner must never be put in a lower category but always in a higher category. If there is any doubt as to whether he should be in the first stage or the second stage, I say that he should be classified in the second stage. If there is any doubt between the second and the third stages, I say he should be classified as a third stage sufferer. I say to the Minister that we must amalgamate the third and the fourth stages. Those two stages must be brought together. In other words, the same benefits which are given to the miner in the fourth stage should also be given to the miner in the third stage.

Do you as a medical man not think that the fourth stage should be abolished altogether?

I want to thank the hon. member for that question because that is really what I want. I want to abolish the fourth stage, but I want to do it in such a way that the fourth stage people will not lose anything by it and that the third stage people will benefit in exactly the same way as the fourth stage people are benefiting now. It is no good classifying people in the fourth stage on their death-bed, and that is virtually what is happening. We should abolish that complaint that is brought to us time and time again. How can we best do that? I say that the way to do that is by closer liaison between the medical practitioners who are looking after the mineworkers on their panels and the bureau. To-day there is no co-operation whatsoever. Last year I asked the Minister whether he would please see that the findings of the bureau are sent to the medical practitioners who look after the particular miner. He asked me then whether or not there was not some sort of code of secrecy in regard to the finding. I told him that everything that passed between the doctors would be treated as confidential. But why should the person who goes up for examination be told casually by the examining doctor: “Go and see your own doctor; I am not quite satisfied with your condition.” He does not tell the person who has been examined what is wrong; he leaves that person in doubt and that person remains in doubt until the doubt is clarified by the medical practitioner who looks after him normally. But with all the latest apparatus and with all the specialists available to determine the extent of damage in the lung, how is the medical practitioner on the panel going to do better than was done by the examiner at the bureau? In any case I would say to the Minister that all questions concerning the lungs or the heart should be discussed by the bureau together with the medical practitioner who looks after the miner normally. The hon, member for Welkom is not too sure whether or not an appeal board should be instituted. I say without any hesitation that an appeal board must be instituted. Why should the person who has been examined not have the right to be re-examined by an independent group of people? I have the utmost confidence in the medical profession. I believe that they will give of their best at all times, but normally when a doctor is in doubt about the condition of his patient he calls in a consultant. Why cannot the bureau have a separate board who will review the relatively few cases where miners appeal? It need not be done haphazardly. Let the person who wants to appeal go to his panel doctor first and ask for the panel doctor to arrange the appeal. If the panel doctor thinks it is worth while he will surely do so. I am sure that this close liaison between the bureau, the panel doctor and the mineworker is something that will help the mineworker. It will make the work of the bureau easier and the panel doctor will be relieved of a lot of anxiety. [Time limit.]

I am very pleased that there is such unanimity on both sides of the House in respect of the mineworker. I feel it my duty to make my contribution. In the first instance I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to one aspect. I fully agree with hon. members on both sides of the House that the fourth stage should be abolished for the simple reason that it comes into operation too late. The man and his family derive no benefit from it because he is already bedridden at that stage. I agree that the third and the fourth stages should be merged. I also want to ask that the first stage be abolished; that as soon as the man leaves the mine he should be classified as falling within the second stage and be paid a pension, for this simple reason that the gap between the first and the second stage is 10 to 15 years in some cases; in some cases it takes 10 to 15 years before he is certified as being second stage and if it is only the husband and his wife he receives a mere R30. It is expecting too much to expect a man to keep body and soul together on R30. Where the Minister is considering introducing legislation some time in the future I want to ask him to go into this question of merging the first and the second stages. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter that has been referred to by the hon. members for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) namely mine sand. Those of us who live at Johannesburg know what the conditions are in some of those suburbs. Those mine dumps can be covered with a thin layer of soil at a comparatively low cost and grass and trees can be planted there. You would be beautifying the city at the same time. I am surprised that when the mines were first developed it was not laid down by law that every mining group would be obliged to see to it that its mine dumps were beautified. That is important. Take places like Booysens and Overton in my constituency. When the north-eastern wind blows the sand lies two to three inches thick on the stoeps. That is not a healthy state of affairs for the children. Something must be done in this connection. We cannot skim over it lightly. It is a very serious matter and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

I wholeheartily agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who asked for an appeal board. It is of the utmost importance that we have an appeal board. There is nobody to whom these people can appeal to-day. The family doctor may have told the mineworker two to three years ago that he was in a serious stage of pneumoconiosis but the bureau does not certify him. When the Pneumoconiosis Act came into operation we had hoped that the position would improve. It has improved to a great extent, but there are still defects, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the problem which exists to-day in connection with the diggers in the Northern Cape. Since the days when diamonds were discovered when there was a terrific rush of people most of whom were mere fortune hunters, the number of diggers who have made it their profession and who have concentrated on digging and who know no other profession, has steadily dwindled, particularly after the Government had decided not to issue any more new certificates. On 30 December 1960 there were 717 certificateholders left in the Northern Cape but not all of them are active diggers. Three hundred and fifty-one out of that number of 717 can be regarded as active diggers, people who work on the diggings from morning till night, who have to make their livelihood from digging and who know no other profession. I want to point out that this problem is of a transitory nature. The Diggers’ Board at Barkly West have determined that that number was decreasing constantly at the rate of approximately 30 to 40 per annum. There were 110 diggers which served as an excellent test check present at a diggers’ meeting that was held and we made a survey of the age of the diggers. The average age of the diggers is 57.37 years. Fourteen per cent of the diggers that are left fall into the age group of over 50 years; 14 per cent fall in the age group of over 65 years; 72 per cent of the 351 active diggers therefore fall in the age group of between 50 and 65 years, for whom provision should be made somehow or other, because the man falling in that age group cannot learn a new trade or follow a new profession.

I want to show what a deserving cause this is. Those diggers are not paupers. As a matter of fact, even when I became interested in their position and decided to plead their cause they told me I could do so on one condition that their misery was not hawked about; that the only thing they asked was that the Government should place them in a position to continue to practise their profession, because they are proud of the fact that they have made a positive contribution to the economy of the country. They have been the pioneers. The work they do has earned valued foreign exchange for the Government. They have to pay income tax; they have to pay super tax and they have to pay export duty which amounts to a substantial amount annually. But those people are in a very critical financial position. The Diggers’ Board has calculated that the average income of a digger during the past year was approximately R745, from which he had to pay his expenses. We realize that there is very little land; there is no more land available in the Northern Cape. What is the solution to this problem? In this regard I want to mention three things briefly to the Minister. In the first place the digger himself says: The Government is still in control of some land, land that has not been alienated from the Government; let the Government make that land available to us. And if the Government should perhaps say that they have not the necessary capital their reply is: That is our affair. We shall work that land; just give it to us. The second suggestion I have to offer is this: The hon. the Minister has announced the establishment of a kind of Government corporation that will develop the land in Namaqualand and I want to ask him whether it is not possible to enlist the services of those diggers who have made digging their profession and who have such a thorough knowledge of the work; can’t their energies and talents and experience be used? Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to make more use of the Diggers’ Board because they can give him the best advice. A solution has to be found for this problem of rehabilitating those diggers. Something has to be done somehow or other. We cannot leave those people in the lurch; we cannot allow them to starve to death.

I want to agree with everything that my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said in regard to pneumoconiosis, and I hope that the Minister having heard his views and the concurring views of hon. members on that side of the House, will agree that a case, a good case, has been made out for an investigation. I, however, want to talk about something else in regard to the mining industry. Yesterday’s statement by the Minister of Economic Affairs brings very grave fears to my mind in regard to a possible rise in the costs of the gold-mining industry. I do not have to give the Minister any estimate of the enormous tonnage of low-grade ore which is available for mining and the disastrous effect on the country’s economy that any further increase in costs will bring. This is common knowledge. But I want to keep on bringing home to him the fact that we must keep an eye on it all the time. I would suggest that he is now bearing possibly the greatest burden of responsibility in regard to the economy of the country in the whole Cabinet, and I want to impress on him again and again the value of the gold-mining industry to this country and ask him please to keep an eagle eye on the other Departments of the Government whose activities could very easily result in an increase of costs, with possibly disastrous effects for various mines and the losing of a large quantity of ore. For instance, there has been a tremendous amount of confusion of thought and words in relation to the establishment of border industries. I cannot expand on that now, but I do say it is essential for this Minister to retain a complete knowledge and a close relationship with the Departments dealing with this particular matter. This question of border industries has in it the seed of very great inflation possibly, if not handled in a proper economic manner. I have a fear, a very real fear, that this one matter alone will probably bring about some increase in mining costs over the next two or three years.

I think it is necessary to give some figures relating to the gold-mining industry and its importance to our economy as the great stabilizer that it is. Since 1946 the industry raised no less than £370,000,000 in new capital. More than half of this came from outside the Union. In 1959 it bought nearly £127,000,000 worth of South African stores and £14,000,000 worth from overseas. The amount that they bought overseas was only bought after very careful investigation indeed. The percentage bought overseas is small, and I am assured that none of those goods were purchased overseas unless they were either not made locally or not made in the sizes and types required in this country. Sir, I wonder whether people outside the Rand realize how some of our very great industries have been established primarily to meet the requirements of the gold-mining industry. Some of these industries have now arrived at the stage where they are actually exporting mining material. When I tell this Committee that the mining industry bought £1,250,000 worth of South African-made boots alone, then you can see of what great benefit it is to that particular industry. That was in 1959. I could go on giving details of the worth of the gold-mining industry to industry as a whole, but I think I have said enough to make the point.

Now as regards our external trade; in 1959 Union exports totalled £632,000,000. The mining industry, including uranium oxide accounted for £292,000,000 of this; diamonds and other minerals £73,000,000, a total of £365,000,000, against a total of £266,000,000—£96,000,000 manufactures and agricultural products, processed and otherwise, £151,000,000, which means that well over half of the foreign currency was earned by the mining industry. I have given these figures to show the importance of the gold-mining industry to this country’s economy and the importance of the Minister himself being in personal contact with the new Economic Advisory Committee so that he will have before his eyes all the time the possibility of danger to this industry. He, as I have said before, has a job that carries the greatest responsibility from the economic point of view in the Cabinet, and I hope he realizes and keeps on realizing that inflation of any sort would be deadly for the mining industry.

Now I want to deal with another point. There is no doubt that the policies of this Government are going to cause a decline in our exports of manufactured goods and agricultural products and that the result will be that the percentage of foreign currency produced by the gold-mining industry will increase in importance, and the importance of the industry to the country will increase proportionately. New mines are necessary. I would suggest that just as new industries receive encouragement, so should mines. Gold mines are of such importance to the whole economy that the taxation position should be reviewed. There can be no case whatever for a special rate of tax higher than that imposed on other companies. The rate of tax must obviously restrict the extension of mining operations, operations which are of such great importance. The hon. Minister is aware of the shortage of capital in this country. We have seen recently that needed capital could not be raised from shareholders of one company because the value of the shares had dropped on the market and that a very large sum which was required had to be supplied by the groups interested in the proposition. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that that is a very bad sign indeed. The product of the gold mines is saleable, it does not have to compete or fight for markets and should be encouraged in every way. Penal taxation certainly is not an encouragement. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reason with his colleagues for fairer taxation in respect of the backbone of our country’s economy, and at least to bring it into line with the taxation on other industries. In conclusion I hope the Minister will assure this House that he is watching a possible increase in costs like a hawk and keeping in close contact with the advisory committee. We get sense from the spokesmen of the Economic Advisory Committee, much more common-sense than we get from Ministers who talk to us on these subjects, but I do hope that this particular Minister will see that his co-ordination and co-operation with the Advisory Committee gets closer and closer. It is most important. The gold-mining industry is not falling in value in relation to the total industry of this country, it is growing, its value is becoming higher and higher.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement in connection with the pension scheme for mineworkers. Secondly I wish to refer to the fact that last year out of a total of 1,327 students at the Government school of mines 1,220 were recruited locally and 107 overseas. I know the hon. the Minister is strict about this and exercises control and that he only agrees to overseas recruitment when it is absolutely necessary. I am pleased to see that most of our young mineworkers come mainly from within our own ranks. I also want to ask the Minister to make a statement in connection with the abolition of the interim examination every six months which was in operation but which was recently abolished. When the Pneumoconiosis Act came into operation in 1956 there was an annual clinical and X-ray examination which was subsequently replaced by a six monthly X-ray examination. That has now been abolished and certain miners are concerned about it and they would like to have a reassuring statement from the Minister.

In conclusion I wish to make an appeal, in this year of 1961 when we are to celebrate the republic, to our mine managements, to the Chamber of Mines and to industry to make some gesture on their part during this year when so many appeals for unity have come from us. I want to ask them how it is possible that whereas most of the mineworkers and labourers in all spheres of mining are Afrikaans-speaking, such a small number of Afrikaans-speaking people are to be found in the higher posts in the mining industry. I want to appeal to them to make some gesture. We are not all stupid; we are not all incapable but it seems to me that the Afrikaans-speaking person is not considered. I can tell them that there is dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking mineworkers. They have a golden opportunity in this year 1961 to make a gesture, so that there will be an increase in the percentage of Afrikaans-speaking people in the higher posts in the mining industry and the Afrikaans-speaking people will, as in the past, accept it in the right spirit, just as they have acted in the past towards their fellow-citizens.

From the nature of things my main interest is the health and welfare of the mineworkers, and that being so I want to associate myself with the pleas that have been made for the abolition of the fourth stage of pneumoconiosis. I am also convinced that the mineworkers would welcome some kind of revision committee. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) quite rightly said that there was no basis on which this stage was determined. Although it is true to say that it is a difficult problem to classify illness, as the hon. member knows, surely something can be done. Illness cannot be measured by a ruler or weighed on a scale. Our only guide is the function of the particular organ affected and experience has shown that where an organ may be very slightly damaged it may affect the function of that organ much more in one case than in the case of somebody else where the organ has been damaged to a far greater extent. There are tests that can be applied as regards the functioning of the lung but even those tests do not give perfect results and because of that we have to rely on guesswork to a great extent, just as in the case of all other disabilities. We are inclined to say that a person is 50 per cent disabled when he has lost a leg, but neither that can be measured with a ruler, it remains guesswork. However, I agree with the hon. member and I have already asked the Department in correspondence that in view of the fact that there cannot be a mathematical basis, the mineworker should always have the benefit of the doubt and if at all possible he should rather be classified in a higher grade than in a lower grade.

Reference has been made to the mine dumps and dust. I am pleased to be able to say that in my area the mines have been conducting tests and it seems as though they will be able to solve that problem by planting grass, trees, etc. on the mine dumps. Before I sit down I wish to react to one point raised by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). He pleaded with the Government for the establishment of industries in his areas in compensation of the mines that may possibly close down. I do not begrudge his area that but I want to state the opposite side as well by saying that I do not think the Government can force industries in that direction simply because houses are standing empty. A market is developing on the goldfield of the Free State and that market must also be supplied. Work must be provided for the labour there. At the moment there are approximately 60,000 Whites and 150,000 non-Whites in that area. Employment must be provided for their children. That is why I do not think it will be right on the part of the Government to encourage industries in that direction simply because the houses are standing empty while the necessary facilities such as power, water and labour are also available at the goldfields of the Free State. I think it will be in the interests of the country that industries are also established at that market.

In the few minutes I have I would like to say a few words about the accident rate in coal mines. Following the Coalbrook disaster, I read in an article in Time that the South African fatality rate per 1,000 tons produced was 15 times that of the United States. A figure of that kind naturally produces a double impression, namely that our Department of Mines is not efficient and that we as a people tend to be callous about human life, whereas both suppositions are quite false. I understand that the Transvaal Chambers of Mines did take this matter up and demonstrated on the basis of the American calculation per 1,000 tons mined that our rate was more in the neighbourhood of 2y or 3 times of that in the United States, a very different thing from 15 times on their basis of calculation. Now on another basis of calculation, the one I am used to, and that is the accidents per 1,000 men employed, it is still far less. I might tell the hon. the Minister that for a short time in my life I was a miner and at that time the accident rate in England compared with America on the basis of per 1,000 men employed was three times the English rate in America. On the basis of 1,000 men employed our figures are actually lower than the American figures. I do know a little about this so far as Natal is concerned and I have seen very good safety records in respect of mines in the Transvaal, and what I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is that although you can never have too much improvement in safety precautions in this regard —and no doubt when the report becomes available there will be useful suggestions—but I am sure in other respects that report will indicate that on the whole the South African coal mine record has been good and that if there are still things to be done, leaving aside a disaster such as Coalbrook which is unique in our history, the South African accident rate does compare not unfavourably with that in other parts of the world. I am only concerned that reasonable publicity should be given to those figures, because after such an event and the appointment of such a commission of inquiry, there is a tendency for people to assume that things leave very much to be desired, whereas, I see the Minister agrees with me, by and large compared with other countries, our position is quite favourable. I am concerned that in some suitable publication whenever the opportunity offers, sufficient publicity should be given to the good side of our records.

I agree with what the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has said when he referred to the nuisance of mine dust. A Select Committee has been appointed to go into the question of air pollution and we trust they will place legislation before this House that will assist us in overcoming this nuisance.

I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in respect of the pension fund scheme for mineworkers. During the past three years we have been asking regularly about this and I trust it will now be possible for the hon. the Minister to announce that such a scheme will be introduced. I want to say something about the pensions that are paid to pneumoconiosis sufferers. Every year during the past few years the Government has increased the oudstryders’ pensions and the old age pensions. This year the disability benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have been increased to bring them in conformity with the increased cost of living. Is it not possible to increase the pensions that are paid to pneumoconiosis sufferers as well so that they too will conform to the increased cost of living? We should like to know whether it is not possible to bring relief to those people.

I want to say something about two other types of pneumoconiosis sufferers. The first type is the pneumoconiosis sufferer who suffers from the second stage and who has additional ailments which render him incapable of doing any work. I want to refer to one case as an example, the details of which I have submitted to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In this particular case the man suffers from pneumoconiosis in the second stage and in addition to that he suffers from emphysema and asthma. The man attends the Johannesburg chest clinic three times a week for treatment and they cannot do anything to improve his condition. The functioning of his lungs is very poor, he cannot do any work and he and his wife and a few minor children have to live on the meagre pension which he receives as a second-stage pneumoconiosis sufferer. I feel that something should be done to assist this type of pneumoconiosis sufferer, because his position is really critical. There is another group of pneumoconiosis sufferer which I think should be assisted and they are the fourth stage sufferers. He is usually the person who can just about stumble along and who cannot do anything for himself. There is a scheme in existence under which these people receive £10 to pay for somebody to look after them if they are bedridden and it is left to the doctor of such a person to issue a certificate whether the man is bedridden or not. The certificate is worded in such a way that it is really only the person who is dying that can be certified as being bedridden. I feel that this attendant allowance should be paid to every fourth grade pneumoconiosis sufferer because all of them require somebody to attend to their needs and that he should not necessarily be bedridden before he receives this allowance. Even if he gets out of bed and sits in a chair it does not follow that he can look after himself, but when he is able to sit in a chair he is not bedridden and then he cannot get the allowance. I think it should be made compulsory that this £10 attendant’s fee should be paid to every pneumoconiosis sufferer who has been declared to be a fourth stage suffer.

After a strenuous week during which much energy has been expended, I should like to say something under the item “Atomic energy” in the few minutes at my disposal, because I think the intention is to close the debate. I want to ask the Minister whether at the atomic research station at Pelindaba, which is situated along the banks of the Crocodile River in which the Hartebeespoort Dam is constructed, they follow the method of diluting the radioactive effluent in the stream. Secondly, is there any international standard according to which the effluent has to be treated and is that treatment 100 per cent effective? I also want to ask the Minister whether there is a process whereby in the case of harmful radio-active materials the materials can be successfully separated from the harmless materials in that effluent so that only the effluent with harmless elements enters the dam. Are there processes whereby such separation can be done 100 per cent effectively and are such processes economical? Then I want to ask the Minister whether the Department of Health has been consulted about the method of dilution in the stream in the case of the Crocodile River? Furthermore is it the intention to develop the atomic research reactor to its utmost capacity or is the intention to expand it in future by installing further units? How many units similar to those to be installed will be possible in future? I also want to ask the Minister whether there was any consultation with the Department of Irrigation and whether steps have been taken in terms of the Irrigation Act of 1956 to prevent the pollution of the water as much as possible and to purify it. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this personal question: Can the Minister give me the assurance that with the erection of the atomic reactor the necessary precautionary measures have been taken so that I will be in a position to say to the public that as far as their health is concerned, the Minister of Mines has given me an assurance that they are 100 per cent safe.

It is only a Chief Whip who can ask so many questions and I shall have to commence by answering his many questions because otherwise an atomic explosion might perhaps take place here. But before doing so, I want to associate myself with those hon. members who expressed their disappointment at the fact that year after year the Mines Vote is neglected. I think the time has arrived when the Whips who arrange these matters, and particularly the Whips opposite, should give this Vote a chance too, because it will be much more in the best interests of the country than many of the other speeches made in this House. I want to agree with those hon. members that this is one of the most important assets South Africa has, its mineral and metal resources, and we devote far too little time to this important subject.

I want to commence with the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) by telling him that we are moving in a very scientific sphere when we discuss atomic energy, and as generally happens in matters of this kind we are to a large extent dependent on the scientists when we have to take final decisions. I can only say that we have a scientific statement and we must subject ourselves to it and accept it as being in the best interests of the country. But on the other hand, we have taken note of the difficulties and particularly the fear in the minds of the community of Brits in connection with the erection of the atomic reactor there. The people fear that it will be dangerous and perhaps even jeopardize their lives. There are international standards for the building of such reactors and the disposal of waste products, and our own scientists not only adhered to these international standards but even went further and applied them in such a way as not only to take into consideration the margins of safety but even a higher standard than that. I am informed that there are really two types of isotopes. The one is a long-life isotope and the other a short-life isotope. The danger lies in the accumulation in water, to fish and plants and animals, and only the long-life isotope can accumulate, and that type is not released in water. This dangerous type of isotope is diluted and evaporates and the rest of it is buried. The Atomic Board spent much money on sending our experts overseas a few years ago, particularly to study the dangers of radiation and pollution and to make a study of the standards applied in other countries, and to make these standards even stricter here than is regarded as being safe overseas, because we still have the space. It has been decided to instruct this expert who has now returned to the country to go around to instruct the public, particularly of Brits, in regard to the matter and to convince them that there is nothing to fear, because if I try to convince them it will not be of much use; they will just say: What does this man know about it? He must convince them that the Atomic Board knows very well what it puts into the dam and that in any case continuous tests will be made in regard to the air, the soil and the water, and also the animals and plant life. Those are the instructions I gave. Then I just want to say further that a Committee of Control has been constituted to keep continuous supervision, and this Committee will consist of representatives of the Departments of Health, Agricultural Technical Services, Water Affairs, the Atomic Board and also the S.A. Bureau of Standards, and it will impose detailed conditions for the disposal of waste, and if necessary it will amend these conditions in the light of further information derived from the research programme of the Atomic Board. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that there is really nothing to fear.

Whilst dealing with radiation—the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) referred to the fact that whereas previously there was a six-monthly examination of mineworkers, it has now again been changed to an annual examination. The reason for that is very simple. It is due to the danger of being over-exposed to radiation, which can take place very easily, and again our technical people are investigating the matter. Not only is a miner often subjected to X-rays for the purposes of being examined for pneumoconiosis, but often he also has other complaints and additional X-rays are taken. The delegates to the Pneumoconiosis Conference in February 1959, expressed concern. The medical adviser of the Minister, Prof. Oosthuizen, who of course is not only the outstanding radiologist in our country but is even recognized as such in the world, has associated himself with this, and this change was made for the sake of the safety of the mineworkers themselves.

Quite a number of questions were asked in regard to the pension scheme for miners. Last year it was announced that we intended establishing a statutory pension scheme for miners. I had draft legislation drawn up and also said that I hoped to be able to introduce it during this Session. The question asked is therefore a fair one. After the Bill was drafted which fitted in a pension scheme with the 1956 legislation, this draft Bill was sent to all interested parties, to the organizations of mine owners and to the trade unions, in November 1960. The result was that we received a tremendous stream of protest not only, as one would have expected, from the mine-owners’ organizations but also from the trade unions. The trade unions of the miners objected to this scheme. In this scheme three bodies are concerned, viz. the Government, the employers and the employees, and hon. members will understand that it is impossible, or at least undesirable, to force through legislation against the will and the wishes of one or two of the interested parties. This opposition was so serious that urgent representations were made to me not to continue with it. I did so and stated that I would send it to them for their further consideration. The question is: What now? Of course this House will want to know. For many years it was correctly said here—the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) also mentioned it—and for many years it was pleaded from all sides that a decent pension should be provided for the mineworkers who devoted their lives to the service, and particularly to those who perhaps had to leave the mines at an early age due to ill-health. As a Government we did our share. Appreciable costs were incurred; people were sent abroad; we instituted investigations and to the best of our ability drew up a draft for their approval. The mining groups then asked for the opportunity to consider the matter, viz. to what extent the existing pension schemes could be approved. As hon. members know, most mining groups have such schemes. The funds, however, are far too small to comply with the wishes or even with the needs of the workers. I told them: I give you that opportunity; consult with each other. If they succeed it will not be necessary to establish any statutory pension fund. However, if they do not succeed in improving the funds, I shall be compelled seriously to consider the establishment of a statutory pension fund.

Quite a number of hon. members—the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee), Geduld and others—spoke about the combating of dust. I just want to say that I am gratified and pleasantly surprised at what the Chamber of Mines has already done in this short time. I asked what costs they had incurred in doing certain work on these old mine dumps. I received a telex message from them. Hon. members know that they were busy with experiments and that they regarded these experiments as being so successful that the idea was that they could carry out a fairly big planting programme and hoped to plant 2,000 acres during the next planting season. In regard to the work they have done so far, they say—

I asked who had provided the money—

I mention it because this is quite rightly their responsibility. They took the riches from the earth and they must help to pay for the health. That is how we felt. But I want to say that the relevant managerial committee of the Chamber of Mines, under the chairmanship of an official of the Chamber, really in this brief period since this matter was raised has proved that they are past the experimental stage and that their work has been very successful. If I had time I would have told hon. members what mine dumps have already been planted, and it is astonishing to see how the grass is growing. I saw with my own eyes how the grass grows on these mine dumps. I hope that the Select Committee which deals with the Air Pollution Bill will give a further spurt to this, but it seems to me that if they delay their report a little too long, all the mine dumps will have been planted, the grass will have grown and the dust problem will have been solved. I hope that that will be the case.

What about the old mine dumps?

They are busy on the old mine dumps. The area where they now work is from Johannesburg towards the East Rand. It is hoped that this will not only be experiments, but that this work will be done also on the West Rand. It is interesting that in regard to the old mine dumps they packed the slimes with coarse dust to prevent erosion and to combat the formation of this fine dust, and in the meantime they continued planting grass. This is really a sound bit of work which is being done.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. P. W. du Plessis) spoke about the marginal mines. He gave the correct figures of the colonies which could be affected according to the then committee, viz. the saving in pennies per ton milled. The total of the 1957 committee’s findings was 27.3 d. per ton if certain things could be done. The largest part of this is 13.7d. for pneumoconiosis compensation. That benefited the mines as the result of another point in regard to which the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) complained, viz. that the actuarial calculations for the fund were in his opinion wrong, and that it was too high, taking into consideration the repayments which had to be made. In any case, that gave the marginal mines a breathing-space, so much so that it lengthened their lives appreciably. I want to emphasize what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan, that if we consider that in 1960 these so-called marginal mines still produced 11.5 per cent of our total gold production, it seems in any case as if these mines have not come anywhere near the end of their lives yet. But I want to admit that there are difficulties. The hon. member for Springs also pointed to these difficulties. He pointed out that these mines are closing down. My difficulty is how to solve the problem of the hon. member for Brakpan, viz. how I can assist. The only large amount which remains over is for railage, viz. 7.3d. If he can persuade my colleague the Minister of Transport to charge a little less, or to charge nothing at all, he will have done the East Rand a great service. I do not think I will manage it. My difficulty is how to assist him. The hon. member for Springs suggested that the best advice would probably be that the Government should do more in the way of encouraging industrial development there. He mentioned various ways in which it could be done. However, this is a heavy burden which is being laid on my shoulders as Minister of Mines, when I am concerned with the matter only indirectly. I would be willing to make available all the proclaimed land which is no longer required for mining for the purposes of industrial development, and we as a Department of Mines, when land is no longer required, like to deproclaim it and to make it available for further industrial development. But the development of industries is in the first place a matter for the local authorities. The local authority should do its utmost to get people interested, to make available the necessary land to provide the facilities and in that way to encourage industrial development.

Will the hon. the Minister make representations to the Department of Bantu Administration in this regard, because that is where the trouble lies?

Together with the representatives of Krugersdorp—because I come from Krugersdorp—I made representations to the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Economic Affairs to allow more workers in the Krugersdorp area for industrial development. I am therefore one of those who does that—as long as the planning fits in. The planning must fit in. There must be enough housing; additional labour should not just be imported haphazardly. The type of industry to be developed must be such that it does not place an unnecessary burden on housing and other services again. If a good case is made out it will be treated sympathetically. I will go along with the hon. member for Springs if he has a good case, but I first want to see his case. The hon. member for Welkom was not satisfied with the pneumoconiosis classification. In this regard there are quite a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Geduld. A Bill has already been drafted and which, as I have said, was initially combined with a pension scheme, and it contains essential amendments to the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1956. We have always said that this is the best Act, and I still say that it is the best Act in any country, when it is compared with similar legislation in other countries, but that does not mean that it cannot be improved. The doctors are improving every day and the Act must also improve. It does not mean to say that once having provided for four stages that is gospel and it can never be changed to two or three stages. But it is not our work in this House to say how many stages there should be. It is not our task simply to have the final word in regard to such a scientific and academic problem. We drafted a Bill which also envisaged a reduction in the number of stages. But I do not want to anticipate this Bill, because after receiving the request that the pension scheme should be postponed I gave instructions to my Department that it was absolutely essential for us to amend the Pneumoconiosis Act. They immediately tackled the matter and the first draft amendment is ready and it has been sent to all the interested parties with the request to them to devote their attention to it as soon as possible and to let us have their comment. Unfortunately I think that in view of the heavy programme we have it will not be possible to put that Bill on the Statute Book this Session.

That is a pity.

The hon. member will get a fright if he sees the Bill and then I think we will quarrel. Then the one will say it must be like this and the other that it must be like that. We must simply allow ourselves to be guided in regard to these highly technical matters by people who know more about them than we do. Therefore I merely want to say that the Bill will come and all the hon. members who spoke about pneumoconiosis, about the wrong diagnoses, etc., and even about the certifying committee to which there were objections, must just wait for the Bill. Some hon. members objected to the certifying committee. Some said: Appoint the Appeal Board again; it is not wrong to appeal against the opinions of the medical men. It is the idea to appoint a committee of three specialists with the Pneumoconiosis Bureau; that the certifying committee will be retained; that if there is any objection, this panel of three specialists will investigate the objection; if they do not agree with the certifying committee they will send it back to the committee. If the committee still insists that they were correct, that committee is called together, with the three specialists, and the medical adviser, who is at present Professor Oosthuizen, will act as chairman, so that they can then resolve the matter. I think we all feel that we do not want to embarrass the medical profession by making it subject to an ordinary appeal such as we have in the administration of justice. That is an idea. I mention it for what it is worth, because it is felt that any person who is not certified by the certifying committee and who feels that he should really have been certified, will then feel that he has received justice. As a medical man, the hon. member for Rosettenville is quite correct when he says that there have already been wrong diagnoses in the past. But the cemetery is full of cases where medical men made wrong diagnoses. That happens everywhere. But we want to help because it is a dangerous disease. We want to do our best to help in this Bill. Nobody is trying to evade his responsibility, neither the Government nor the employers. We want to give the miner what he deserves.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. Venter) made a plea for the diggers at Barkly West. I have visited those diggings myself and met the diggers. I just want to say that they are people of high quality, hard-working and honest, as the hon. member described them. The trouble is that they are professional diggers and that diamondiferous ground is becoming scarce. I did not hear about the Western Transvaal this time, but we know that there the position is precisely the same. Of course it is not really the Government’s duty to see that professional diggers are given ground or to solve their problems by purchasing land. The Government cannot, e.g., buy land as a speculation. A man will not sell his land if he knows there are diamonds. The State will have to buy the land and then prospect it. After prospecting and having bought the land at a high price, particularly if it is learnt that the State wants to buy something …

Will the hon. the Minister give us information in regard to the statement made last year that prospecting syndicates will be formed with financial support—how far that matter has progressed?

I will come to that, and this is also the subject of the question asked by the hon. member for Kimberley (South). The diggers have a good case. There is nothing wrong with it. The only trouble is that the Government cannot buy land as a speculation. As a State we dare not do so. There is unalienated Crown land in Namaqualand and the House knows what happened in that regard. I made no fewer than two statements and it is public knowledge. Companies were formed by the thousands. Tens of thousands of people saw these riches in their imagination. It was an impossible task to allot what did not even really exist yet, but which grew in the imagination of the people to bags full of diamonds! Therefore the Government eventually decided that a sort of State-controlled corporation would be established. I called together all the experts of the various departments—my own Department, Commerce and Industry, Finance, etc.—as a committee, and I hope that within a week they will be able to submit to me a draft of how this State-controlled corporation will be constituted. The draft they submit to me will be submitted by me to practical diggers to see whether it is practicable. If there are vacancies we will give those people an opportunity. At this moment, however, it is absolutely impossible for me to say what this State-controlled corporation will look like.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now replied to the various points to the best of my ability. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams), I am sure, does not need a reply. I am glad he raised the point. I can only tell him that this article which appeared was attacked not only by the Chamber of Mines but also by my Department. We wrote to the publishers and challenged them to substantiate the allegations with facts or else to withdraw their article, after the facts were sent to them, but hitherto they have not done so. It was a very unsavoury matter.

Vote put and agreed to.