When the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) spoke yesterday, his opening remarks were that he had heard the same story from the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) that he had been hearing for 16 years. Now this is true; he has been hearing the same story. He has been hearing the story of how to keep South Africa on an even financial keel, despite the actions of the Government, because every year the Government has either introduced legislation or the Ministers by way of statements have indicated policies, the effect of which, if they were properly carried out, would have radically interfered with the normal expansion of industry in this country. But the putting into effect of these grandiose schemes of the Government has been so ineffective that they have neither achieved what they have set out to do, nor, unfortunately, have they interfered with private enterprise so drastically that the forward march of the economy of this country has been stopped. But, because of the poor results achieved by the measures the Government has promulgated, each year we are faced with a little more and a little more in an attempt to achieve what they have set out to do, and a typical case is that of border industries.

In reply to a question put on 21 April this year, the hon. the Minister told the House that from 1961 to date, a period of three years, some R65,000,000 had been spent on border industries by private enterprise and by the State. Presumably a fairly large portion of this amount had been spent prior to the implementation of the Government’s policy of the establishment of border industries. He also told us that some 12,786 Bantu were employed in these industries. It therefore becomes quite clear that this sort of development is far too slow really to mean anything in the policy of the Government, and therefore it is quite obvious that they have to take further steps to try to ensure that more than 4,000 Bantu per annum can be diverted and employed in Bantu industries. This is confirmed by the report of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries and the Development of Border Industries for the year ended 31 December 1963, which was tabled on 10 April this year. This report tells us that during the year 72 applications for assistance were dealt with, 18 were approved, 28 were receiving attention and 26 were withdrawn or refused; that R3,600,000 had been made available in eight cases through the Industrial Development Corporation; that in ten cases income-tax concessions to the extent of approximately R45,000 had been granted on investments to the value of approximately R1,500,000, and that investments to the extent of about R2,300,000 were still under consideration for tax relief. Then, finally, the report goes on to say—

Of course the interpretation of “substantial” varies according to the way one looks at it—

The Government has been quick to take note of this general paragraph in the report, because on 30 April this year the Minister announced additional help for the border industries. It is interesting to note that, although Parliament was sitting, the Minister did not find it necessary to report to Parliament, but he made this statement externally, which is becoming a habit of Ministers. All these statements of policy are not made in the House any more, but at the opening of shows and at banquets, etc., and the first the House hears about these statements of policy is when hon. members read about it in the papers. In any case the Minister was good enough to give us not a White Paper but a statement of the measures approved for border industries. Here the policy of the Government continues as I originally set it out. There is a statement of what is to be done, failure to achieve anything, and then further steps are taken to set things right. We find that to-day a great deal of very valuable assistance is being given to border industries by way of tax allowances, cheap electricity and water, special railage rates and special allowances which, in some cases, can amount to no less than 72 per cent in the first year, of the amount invested. So we find the situation whereby, slowly but surely and progressively, bolder industries are becoming an increasingly greater threat to the normal industries of this country.

Here I want to refer again to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). He said yesterday that this question of decentralization did not mean that all decentralized industry was going to the border areas; that an industry could be decentralized anywhere in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member a very simple question: Will he tell this House that the benefits offered to border industries in terms of this statement by the Minister will apply to industries which are decentralized to non-border areas? In other words, if someone wants to decentralize to Bultfontein or any other small town, will these benefits which are being given to border industries also be given to the industries in those small towns? Because that is what the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) tried to tell the House. We know it is not correct, and that nothing will be offered to these industries, and it is no good the hon. member coming to this House and talking a lot of nonsense.

If we are to increase the volume of industry in this country, it has to be done not only by increased internal consumption but by export. I think the time has come when we can expect from the Minister a full statement as to what is happening on the export front; what steps he has taken to increase our overseas trade representation and what the position is with Safto, because Safto receives a fairly large subsidy from the Government, and it is working very closely with the Department, and I think it is doing very good work. I must give the Minister credit for this: that, since 1961, when the three missions went abroad, much has been done, but much still remains to be done. [Time limit.]

I want to raise two matters. The first is in reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in connection with border industries. He alleged yesterday that it was nonsensical to contend that there were border areas and border industry areas. I want to say that the policy in regard to border industries must be seen against the background of the broad framework of the decentralization of industries. When we talk about the decentralization of industries we realize that a prerequisite for the decentralization of industries is that there should be no further centralization of industries. Take an area like Durban, where industries are already centralized. It would be silly to classify Durban as a border industry area. This would simply mean that that would be a greater centralization of industries in that area. This would, therefore, wreck the policy of decentralization. But that does not mean to say that, because Durban cannot be classified for the decentralization of industries, it is not a border area as far as the Bantu are concerned, because there are Bantu areas abutting the industrial area of Durban. Those Bantu living there can, as is the case in regard to the border industries, also live in their own area but work in the centralized industries in Durban. Surely it must be clear that this is also the case as far as Pietermaritzburg is concerned. The hon. member said that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) had apparently overstepped the mark, but that he had not advocated Government policy in asking that industries be established at Pietermaritzburg. Pietermaritzburg is also a place in which industries are centralized and therefore, if one advocates the establishment of more industries there, that is not decentralization. As it happens, Pietermaritzburg is in the same position as Durban and industries there are well situated as far as the Bantu are concerned. These are two areas in which industries are centralized, and if more industries are established there, those industries will simply become more centralized.

I come now to the second point in regard to the decentralization of industries to the border areas. In this regard the decisive factor is that these industries must be labour-intensive industries; in other words, industries employing a large number of Bantu labourers. That is a requirement. Those industries using a large number of Bantu labourers will then move to those areas, to the borders of the Bantu areas, in order to provide the Bantu there with employment. The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked; Why East London? I want to mention East London as a specific case. East London has stagnated for the past 20 years; there has been hardly any industrial expansion at East London. It has stagnated. But there is a Bantu area at East London in which many Bantu live, and that is why it is a suitable area to which to attract border industries because the labour is available there. But when one talks about a border area which has Bantu living close to it, but which is centralized as far as industries are concerned, it does not mean to say that the Bantu there cannot work according to the same pattern as that followed in the border industry areas.

This bring me to the second point mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin). He said that it was stated that there are now 12,000 Bantu employed in border industries. The Department of Commerce and Industries makes concessions for border industries according to certain norms which it sets, and it is the industries in which those 12,000 Bantu are employed which it has classified as border industries. But, according to the survey made by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, if we take the number of Bantu employed in industries, not only in those industries which have been classified as border industries by the Department of Commerce and Industries, but in all industries in areas bordering upon Bantu areas, thus including the centralized metropolitan areas, the Bantu working in the industries, but living in the Bantu areas, we find that there are already 42,000 Bantu employed in this way. These are Bantu living in their own area but working in the industries close to the Bantu areas.

Including Umlazi?

Yes. Umlazi has not been classified by Commerce and Industries as a border industry area, but it is a centralized industrial area. But hon. members always make a mistake in regard to one matter. They think that when we speak of a border industry we are referring to an industry which is always in the “Bundu”, away from all civilization. But that is quite the wrong attitude to adopt.

I want to come to another point. I want to refer to Phalaborwa, and I want to ask a question in this connection, because I am particularly interested in this matter as the representative of a platteland constituency. A fertilizer factory has now been established there in which three important undertakings have an interest. I understand—I do not know whether it is true or not—that that fertilizer factory will start producing early in 1965. They are going to produce phosphates, a fertilizer which will be used by the farmers. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the policy is going to be to pack those phosphates at Phalaborwa and to distribute them from there. I mention this, because there is talk that the phosphates will be produced there, but that it will be transported in bulk to Sasolburg or to the Rand to be granulated and packed there and also distributed from there. I think that it is a wrong policy to transport phosphates in bulk to the Rand and to have it granulated, packed and distributed from there. I think that the Northern Transvaal ought to obtain the artificial fertilizer from Phalaborwa direct. I should like to have clarity in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has now highlighted what we on this side have been trying to emphasize for a long time, that the control of the economy of South Africa is passing out of the hands of the Minister of Economic Affairs and is now being controlled by the Commissioner for Bantu Affairs. It is now he who is to determine what is a border industry, and he who makes policy statements on Phalaborwa, an industry in which the I.D.C. is concerned, and he who tells this House what is a border and what is a border industry, and not the Minister or his Deputy. They have become pawns of the ideological obsession of this Government and they are now being told by Bantu Administration how they are to run the industrial affairs of South Africa. The Minister can pretend still to control his Department, but the fact that the replies to my questions to him are given by Bantu Administration is the evidence. What were the questions I asked? I asked what the difference was between a border area and a border industry area. The hon. member told us that the distinction is going to be decided apparently by the number of Bantu in any industry and how it fits in with their political pattern. What he has disclosed is exactly what we of the United Party have maintained. We have maintained that there are double standards, and in this case treble standards, making up the gigantic bluff of the policy of the Government, because we have been given three sets of figures in regard to the employment of Bantu. We have one issued by the Minister’s Committee for the Location of Industries and the Development of Border Areas, which indicates that 4,389 Bantu have been employed in border industry areas as the result of Government assistance, and that is the figure that matters. The effect which Government policy and Government assistance have had on the employment of Bantu is that 4,389 Bantu have been employed at an expenditure of R12,900,000, at a cost of R2,700 per Bantu employed. That is what is important and what South Africa must know, that the taxpayer is paying R2,700—that is the average over three years—per Bantu employed in a border area. But then we get a second set of figures supplied by the Minister of Economic Affairs in reply to a question on 21 April. There the Minister added to the figure given by his Committee; that figure became 7,700, and he added 5,000 Bantu from what he said were the 50 existing industries which had expanded. So he got a figure of 12,000, including the ordinary employment as the result of industrial expansion without Government assistance. Then the hon. member for Heilbron, and the Minister of Bantu Administration, comes with a third set of figures, and those are the figures they want South Africa to believe, a set of figures indicating that 42,000 Bantu are employed in border areas. But where does that figure of 42,000 come from? We have just been told that all the Bantu of Durban, working in Durban and living in Umlazi, are included in that figure, but they are not employed as a result of Government policy. They have been employed all along—ever since there has been industry in Durban. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Heilbron clearly stated that that included Umlazi. It includes areas such as Durban and Pietermaritzburg and it includes all the industries which in the normal course have developed as part of the economic growth of South Africa. That establishes the fact which I stated last night and which I now want to emphasize, that the United Party has always been in favour of the decentralization of industry in terms of sound economic laws and principles. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the accusations of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to the effect that the control over industry has now been taken out of the hands of the hon. the Minister and has now been vested in the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I can only say that a remark of that nature is so petty and cheap that it does not warrant a reply.

I want to bring a matter of the greatest importance to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot perhaps give us some information in this regard. It is contended that in the not too distant future there will be a shortage of water in the Vaal basin. If this happens I can imagine what the position will be in regard to our industrial development in those areas which are to-day supplied by water from the Vaal River. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, if there is any real danger of this happening—and I believe that there is—what steps are going to be taken in order to overcome that shortage of water. If the areas that are to-day being supplied by water from the Vaal River experience a shortage of water and if the industrial development there, which is going to increase far more in the future, continues, a position will arise which it will be difficult to overcome. This will affect the whole of the Witwatersrand; it will affect the Free State goldfields as well as the industrial complex of Vereeniging. It will affect Vanderbijlpark; it will affect Sasolburg and it will affect the Vaalhartz settlement about which I am particularly concerned. The Vaalhartz settlement is an area which has a tremendous future potential and I should like to know what is going to happen there. If there is a water shortage it will mean that an area of between 45,000 and 48,000 morgen of land will be affected; that is, apart from the industrial development that may take place in that area. This shortage will affect the Kimberley diamond fields and it will also affect the possible industrial development of the Northern Cape. It is difficult for one to predict to-day the extent of industrial development in that area. Apparently the surface has not yet even been scratched in this regard. These are all matters which make it necessary for us to give attention to the water supplies of the Vaal basin. Other areas too will be affected. There is Pretoria which falls outside of that area and there are the mineral riches of the whole of the Cape which will be affected thereby. If this is to happen and there is no prior planning in order to combat this state of affairs, one can imagine what the position will be in the foreseeable future. I am aware of the fact that a conference was held at Potchefstroom on 3 February at which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs was present. It was decided at that conference to appoint two committees, a general aid committee and a work committee consisting of technical persons, to give specific guidance in connection with this matter. I should like to know whether those two committees are already operating and, if so, who the members of those committees are. I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister further what policy is going to be followed in those areas. Can a policy of the centralization of industries be followed or will a policy of decentralization be followed? I want to associate myself with the suggestion made here by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) in connection with the licensing of industries. I want to say that if this is done there is the possibility of our being able to ascertain more or less where industries should be established. But if this is not done and industries are centralized it appears to me as a layman that this may constitute a danger in time of trouble from a strategic point of view. I should like therefore to know from the hon. the Minister whether a policy of decentralization will be followed there. If a policy of decentralization is to be followed there I feel that it is highly desirable to draw up a long-term plan. There is the area of the Northern Cape, for example, which has tremendous potential as far as industrial development is concerned. Practically everything needed for industrial development is available there. There is power, there are raw materials and there is water, provided that the Vaal basin can always supply it. All that is needed is coal but I contend that coal will in the foreseeable future be replaced by nuclear power. If coal is replaced by nuclear power then there will be nothing to prevent tremendous expansion taking place in the whole area of the Northern Cape. Sir, I should like to make this suggestion in regard to the potential of the Northern Cape: It is contended that a country can never be completely independent unless it can provide its own steel requirements. We know what Iscor is already doing to-day but I predict that Iscor will still have to undergo tremendous expansion in order to provide the future steel requirements of the Republic of South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has made a special plea for the small towns. I would like to draw his attention to a report which appeared in the Burger of 30 April 1963 of a speech made by Dr. Norval, in the course of which he said this—

Sir, that is our case. We have said that we are not against decentralization as long as it is economic, but what we are opposed to is decentralization for the purpose of establishing border industries, which is not based on economic lines but which is resorted to merely in order to fulfil Government ideology. Sir, I want to come back to the speeches made here yesterday by the hon. members for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), both of whom advocated the licensing of industries. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) advocated the licensing of industries and he was supported in that plea by the hon. member for Vereeniging. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, particularly as he has indicated that he champions free enterprise, whether that is the policy of his Government; whether the hon. members for Pretoria (Central) and Vereeniging were merely flying a kite or whether they were speaking on behalf of their party in advocating the licensing of industries. It seems to me that what the Government is doing, through the Minister, is to offer inducements to private enterprise to establish industries in border areas, and now the Minister is taking further powers, if these hon. members are to be relied upon, to coerce industry by licensing, thus ensuring that only certain industries can be established. I would like the hon. the Minister to make it quite clear whether it is the policy of the Government to license industries in the future; whether he has had any discussions with the Federated Chamber of Industries along those lines, and whether that is going to be the policy of his Department, because it does seem to me that he is going to run into a lot of difficulty if that is going to be his policy. Or is he going to ignore the suggestions made by those two hon. members? I would like to know from the Minister what his policy is with regard to the question of markets. The hon. member for Vereeniging indicated that for the foreseeable future the markets in Africa can be ignored. He indicated that there was very little prospect of developing those markets. Let me quote the hon. member’s own words; he said—

The Minister has indicated that he is interested in developing markets in all parts of the world. He has been particularly active in the East. The Minister is shortly going to a conference in Geneva and I would like to know from him how he is going to deal with a country like Japan which is to-day treated in the highest brackets as far as duties are concerned. With the development of the market in Japan and with the development of markets in the East, is the time not going to come when they are going to demand a quid pro quo? Has pressure not already been brought to bear on this country to lower the duties on certain textiles to give Japan more favourable treatment than she is enjoying at the present time, in return for the large volume of business which Japan is giving us to-day? I submit that that is an important factor which must be taken into account. The Japanese businessmen who are touring Africa with full order books are not going to take kindly to duties which exclude them. As the Minister well knows, they are in the highest duty bracket at the moment and I should like to know from the Minister whether as a result of this trade with Japan South African industries, who will have to face competition if the tariffs are reduced, will be called upon to make further sacrifices. I think those are factors which will have to be taken into account and on which the hon. the Minister owes a reply to this committee.

The Minister has also indicated in this paper which he has made available to us, “Measures Approved by the Government for the encouragement of industrial development in the border areas”, that one of the factors taken into account in establishing border industries is the number of Bantu employed. I should like the hon. the Minister to let us know what factors are taken into account. Is it the number of Bantu employed in relation to the capital cost of the machinery, or is it just a total number of Bantu employed? Because this Paper indicates that there is going to be an investment allowance of 25 per cent on buildings and an initial allowance of 30 per cent on machinery and an investment allowance of 35 per cent on machinery, in those cases where industries are established in the border areas. I understand from the remarks made by the hon. member for Heilbron that the Minister will take into account the number of Bantu employed. What happens in this case when an industry is established in a border area, based on a certain number of employees; that industry gets the investment allowance on buildings, the investment allowance on machinery, and then after a reasonably short time the industry introduces automation. It is then able to run its industry with a considerably reduced Bantu staff. What happens then? You see, Sir, it is quite easy for an industrialist to establish a factory requiring, say, 3,000 employees. By the introduction of automation it can cut that figure down by 75 per cent. If the Minister goes to my own constituency, Hammarsdale, he will see a factory there making canvas and making extensive use of automation. Very few Bantu are employed in that particular factory. In some of the factories there there is a high degree of Bantu labour in relation to the number of European employees, but in one factory particularly there is very expensive machinery and very little Bantu labour indeed. Because the factory is one of the latest of its kind there is a high degree of mechanization in that factory. I am not suggesting for one moment that that factory started in that way. It has not cut down its employees. But I can conceive of a factory of a similar nature, particularly a textile factory, using hand-supervised looms, as against a factory with automatic looms. Such a factory could start with an investment allowance on its factory building and then get hand-supervised looms where a considerable amount of manual labour is required, and then after a year or two that factory could introduce further machinery, claim the investment allowance of 25 per cent, claim the additional depreciation because it is in a border area, and then as soon as its labourers finish their terms of contract, dispense with their services. It could cut its labour by as much as 75 per cent and get all the benefits of a border industry and all the benefits of automation. I should like to know whether the Minister has given his attention to this particular problem. I should like him to tell us whether he decides whether an industry is a border industry or not or whether that decision is taken by his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because I submit that the Minister of Bantu Administration does not have the technical knowledge in his Department that the Department of Commerce and Industry does have at its disposal. [Time limit.]

I should like to deal with the question of the electrification of the rural areas. I take the liberty of raising this matter because Section 20 of the Electricity Act of 1958 makes provision whereby the Commission can make certain regulations, amongst others, regarding the building of powerlines and the fees to be imposed in this regard, and because the same section makes provision whereby the Minister must approve of these regulations. I contend that people on the platteland and the farming community in general are not satisfied with the rate at which the electrification of the platteland is being proceeded with. In its report which was sent to the Minister in June 1963, and which was Tabled in this House, Escom has the following to say (translation)—

The important reason why the electrification of the platteland is being proceeded with so slowly is because power is too expensive. The difficulty is that the building of powerlines is expensive not only in sparsely-populated areas but in reasonably intensive farming communities. Take an area like my own constituency which is a reasonably intensive farming area. Quite a few schemes have failed there over the past year because power would have cost the farmers as much as R30 per month, largely because of the large amount of capital required for the building of power lines. In this regard it is not simply a question of whether the farmers should be provided with electricity or not; it goes much further than that. Some years ago the commission investigating European occupation of the platteland found that if the platteland could be electrified swiftly and effectively, this would be one of the most important means of stimulating White occupation of the platteland. That is why I want this afternoon to urge the hon. the Minister most courteously to have this question of the electrification of the platteland further and very thoroughly investigated either by a commission of inquiry or a departmental committee of inquiry; that careful attention be given to specific aspects of the matter, in the first instance, the question of a reduction in the amount levied for expansion purposes or the capital costs connected with the provision of electricity. For example, attention can be given to the possibility of giving farmers more opportunity of undertaking the construction work themselves. Manpower can be saved in this way and large sums of money can also be saved by this means. In the second instance, attention can be given to the subsidization of the small-scale farmer in this connection. If a farmer can be assisted to improve his farm by the construction of dams and so forth, then it is my humble opinion that he can also be assisted to have his farm electrified, particularly as far as the capital works in this regard are concerned. In the last instance, attention can be given by a commission of inquiry of this nature to ways and means of accelerating and facilitating the supplying of electricity to the platteland in order to enable our farming community to enjoy all the fruits and advantages of our modern civilization.

I would like to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that I agree with him that this Government has been rather remiss in extending electrification into the rural areas. Our neighbour, Southern Rhodesia, is much further advanced in that regard than we are, and I agree with the hon. member’s plea.

But I want to come back to the comments or rather the veiled proposals which were made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and certain speakers on his side who followed him when, under the pretext of speaking in the interests of the decentralization of industry, they put up a plea that their should be licensing of industrial development through some central authority. I think the hon. the Minister should tell the House precisely what his reactions are to that suggestion and to what extent he agrees with this newly suggested shackling of free enterprise in the country. Sir, it is noticeable that this is the second occasion recently on which a plea has been put up for some form of regimentation of private industrial enterprise, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with the views which were recently expressed by the Chairman of Sasol, only about eight or ten days ago, who is reported to have criticized South Africans for making what he called a fetish of private enterprise. He seems not only to have extolled the advantages of State-controlled enterprise but to have damned with faint praise the virtues of private enterprise. He reported to have concluded by saying this—

Sir, that is a very serious statement to have been made by a gentleman holding such high office in South Africa. I say therefore that if the Government is sincere about its attempt to assure foreign investors that the Government is in favour of expansion of private enterprise in South Africa, then there is a very pertinent obligation on the Minister today to repudiate, or at any rate to tone down, the views expressed by the head of one of South Africa’s largest State-controlled industrial undertakings, and also to reassure private enterprise in regard to the suggestions made across the floor of the House yesterday and to-day in regard to this further shackling of private development by means of a new form of licensing through some central control.

Sir, I particularly want to get some information from the hon. the Minister in regard to the appropriation of funds to the I.D.C. for carrying into effect the Government’s policy of promoting industrial development in the so-called border areas. Judging from the statement which has been referred to by other speakers and which the hon. the Minister made outside this House recently, it is evident that the bait which is presently being offered by the I.D.C. to industrialists is not tempting enough to land the big fish that the Government needs for the success of its scheme. Reference has also been made to the report of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries for 1963, which also seems to confirm that there has been no great urge on the part of industrialists to accept the bait offered to them by the I.D.C. The report says this—

Sir, I can forgive the Permanent Committee for attempting to view the problem from the social and economic angles, but, of course, the fact of the matter is that what is motivating the scheme so far as the Government is concerned is politics and not economics, and therein lies the real rub. This is the fourth year in succession in which public funds have been placed in the hands of the I.D.C. to lure industrialists to the border areas, but in all that time this House has not had a single statement of account either from the I.D.C. itself or from the Minister or from his Department as to what use these moneys are being put. The House and the public whose money it is have been left completely in the dark as to what the money has produced in terms of industrial output or economic development, or as to how these moneys have been invested. When I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister on 31 January by way of question, all I got from him was a certain amount of vague information and some muddled figures. The information was minimal and as far as the figures were concerned the information was incorrect. When I drew attention to this some five days later neither the Minister nor the Deputy tried, or has at any stage since then tried, to correct the information and to say what the actual position is. Treatment of that kind may be contempt of myself, which is unimportant, but it is also contempt of this House. This form of development is not the decentralization of industry, of which the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has spoken and for which the chairman of the I.D.C. himself has pleaded in his latest report. In his latest report the chairman of the I.D.C. spoke of the extension of the concept of decentralization to undertakings in other suitable areas of the country. He urges that that form of decentralization should be based on proper economic and practical grounds. He says the Government should develop a policy which is positively shaped to encourage industrial decentralization.

The hon. the Minister has not yet reacted to this suggestion by the Chairman of the I.D.C. He has left us completely in the dark in that regard. But I have said the policy for which public moneys have been voted in respect of the expansion of the industrial enterprise in border areas is politically inspired. Dr. van Eck points out in his report “that the scheme postulates the offer of financial benefits to the entrepreneur to off-set the disadvantages which he will encounter”. He mentions two types of financial aid. He says it offers fully-serviced factories built to agreed specifications and design and, secondly, it offers loans for equipment and for working purposes. One would have thought that in itself would have been a substantial inducement, but the Minister now tells us that these benefits are still not enough. When the Minister now tries to make the bait still more attractive in order to land the bigger industrial catches in the border areas then I, for one, should like to have information as to what has happened to the millions of rand that have already been sunk into that development [Time limit.]

I think we are all glad to see that the Opposition has undergone a change in regard to their approach to economic problems. We all remember that in former years they repeatedly told us in this Commitee of the deplorable economic position in which the country found itself and of the dark days ahead of us. We have now seen in this debate that the Opposition felt it should realize that South Africa is experiencing a period of unprecedented prosperity. The Opposition has realized that South Africa’s economy to-day is perhaps developing faster than possibly that of any other country in the world; that our economy to-day is the one with the greatest dynamic force, and can perhaps be compared only with that of Japan; that we have succeeded in achieving tremendous economic development, in spite of the jeremiads, and in doing so without inflation and with only a slight increase in prices. I am very glad to see that hon. members of the Opposition now realize this.

I regret to see that the Opposition, in respect of one important problem, has now come along for the umpteenth year with the same complaints and the same criticism, viz. in regard to the development of industries along the borders of the Bantu areas. I want to predict, Sir, that the day will arrive when the Opposition will also surrender on that point and realize that its criticism and its present attitude was wrong. It will not surprise me if the day arrives when the Opposition, as it has done in other respects, tells us that they, and not we, are the father of this scheme. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) spoke about “the grandiose schemes of the Government”, which were all failures. I wonder whether he referred to Iscor, or to Sasol or to Foscor, or to any other scheme of the Government which resulted in failure, so that the Government later had to put an end to it?

There is already a change of attitude in regard to border industries on the part of the Opposition, but we notice that certain prominent industrialists in the country, who formerly were critical of the border industry policy, have changed their minds and now agree with us that this type of industry shouldbe promoted. I think a gradual change is also coming about in the minds of the Opposition in this regard. It was no less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who, during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the Session, like other hon. members, referred to the speech of the Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether we would not consider decentralizing to rural areas, to White areas. He pointed out the necessity for decentralization to the rural areas because, as he said, it appeared that the rural areas were becoming increasingly Black. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members opposite thereby admitted that there was a danger in the over-concentration of industries and that it was essential to guide industries away from the urban areas to other areas. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) says that there is no over-concentration. But one hon. member after the other pleads for decentralization. They thereby concede that they believe it is unhealthy for all industries to be concentrated in a few large areas and that it would be advantageous to the country to send certain industries away from the urban areas to the rural areas.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went even further. He spoke about sufficient encouragement. There was reference to encouragement on the same basis as that which is given to border industries. Now I ask you, Sir: The argument is continuously being advanced that border industries are uneconomic. This proposition is proved, according to the Opposition, by the fact that special concessions are granted to them. Now the Leader of the Opposition pleads that we should grant the same concessions to the rural areas. Now I want to ask this: If one has to make concessions there also, are those industries not uneconomic too? Do they not now recognize the principle that it is justifiable for a country under certain circumstances to grant concessions to industries in order to decentralize them? Initially they may be uneconomic, but it is in the interest of the country to draw them away from the large urban areas to the rural and other areas. Are we to accept, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, that certain parts of the country will become increasingly Black and that that is dangerous, or are we to accept that it is the policy of the Opposition to prevent the Whites from flocking to the cities, and that we should allow as many Blacks as possible to go to the cities? Is that what the hon. member for Jeppes meant when he asked what was the use of making certain areas Whiter and others Blacker? Are we to infer from that that we should try to keep the White man out of the cities by decentralizing to the rural areas; the White man should not go to the cities, but the Black men can go there in unlimited numbers?

Then it is argued that the areas to which we want to send these people are uneconomic areas from the point of view of the establishment of industries. I want to refer here to the Viljoen Report, which we all know. A few years ago I was attacked in this House because it was alleged that we did not implement the recommendations of the Viljoen Report. Hon. members opposite assured me that they accepted the recommendations of that report in regard to the establishment of industries. This report says the following—

In other words, we are told in that report that the areas where industries should be established on the ordinary basis of decentralization are more or less the same areas which also come into consideration for border industry development because they have the natural resources available. We do not send the border industries into the “bundu”, as someone said here. Those particular areas which now come into consideration for development, particularly in Natal, are areas richly endowed with water, agricultural and other raw materials, coal and iron ore, phosphates, platinum, copper, chrome, and particularly labour, which is the greatest asset. Those are not uneconomic areas. They are areas which would also have been considered in an ordinary programme of decentralization, apart from border industry development.

The hon. member for Jeppes said that there was no over-concentration of industries in South Africa. The hon. member compared us with other countries in Europe. Because there is no over-concentration—just the opposite of what his Leader said or implied—it is not necessary to decentralize industries. We admit that the same position does not exist here which exists in, e.g. Paris or in London. We do not have those large urban areas, but are we now to wait until we have reached that stage? Are we to wait, as those countries waited, until it is too late? They now find that they made a mistake in allowing their areas to develop in that way, and to-day one may no longer establish an industry in London or in Paris. Is that not overconcentration? When 76 per cent of one’s industrial workers are concentrated in four areas in South Africa, and when one considers the industrial production, I want to say that, relatively speaking, South Africa’s industries are more over-concentrated than those of most countries of the world. I want to concede one point that the hon. member made, namely that concentration in the economic sphere has a certain value. Industry likes to be settled in groups because that results in certain services and benefits which lead to economies. That is called the external economies or the external savings resulting from the concentration of industries. I concede that. That is why in our border industry development we do not spread industries all along the length of our borders. That is why we select areas and create the potential for development and see to it that small concentrations take place, and that is why we select areas which potentially have raw materials, areas where it is easy to build up the infra-structure, areas where the maximum labour is available, and areas which in general have the greatest potential for development. That is the reason why we have established nuclei such as Rosslyn, East London and in the Northern Transvaal. We do not just send these industries anywhere. We will try to have a concentration of industries in all these places.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked for more assistance to be given to the Witwatersrand. As the result of the fact that there are dying mines, problems arise which, he says, can only be solved by greater industrial production in those areas. We are aware of those problems. We are continually studying them. We have already taken certain steps to try to prolong the lives of those mines. We try to point out to industries the possibilities which exist along the East Rand and along the West Rand. But we will no more compel industries to go to the East Rand or the West Rand, than we will force any industry to go anywhere. I continually point out to industries what the possibilities of the East Rand and the far West Rand are, but it is for them to decide whether they want to go there or not.

Do you grant all these benefits to the new industries?

I am glad the hon. member mentions that. We grant benefits to the border industries because at the moment there are disadvantages in establishing industries in those areas. There are generally disadvantages attached to new areas. But take a place like the East Rand. There we have a market, there is transport and there are all the essential services; there are housing and schools and public bodies. Having all these things, one does not have the disadvantages existing in a new border area. The only object in granting the benefits is to neutralize the disadvantages connected with establishing an industry in a border area instead of in a metropolitan area. Hon. members should remember that it is wrong to regard the Witwatersrand as an area which is dependent on the continued existence of the gold mines. There was a time when Johannesburg was established as the result of the gold mines, and when its development flowed from gold, but that time is past. Not much gold is being produced in Johannesburg to-day, and still it is developing tremendously. It is an industrial city, it is the financial capital, it is a city with the head offices of business houses, and where services are rendered. It is a city which is progressing under its own steam, without the help of gold. The industrial growth in Johannesburg and on the Rand is so fast, in spite of the diminishing gold production, that it causes us concern; we try to persuade industries to go to other areas. Already since 1940 more Whites have been employed in the manufacturing industry on the Rand than in the gold-mining industry. In addition, there are the tertiary activities. In 1960, for example, 79,000 Whites were employed in factories on the Rand, 75,000 in commerce, 62,000 in the various services and only 21,000 in the mines. So out of a total working population of 237,000, only 21,000 or 9 per cent were employed on the mines. I think we are grossly exaggerating the position if we say that the Rand or Johannesburg will be endangered by the closing of the mines, because the influence of industry and of service organizations is much stronger than the effect of the dying mines. How else could the hon. member explain that, in spite of the fact that very little gold is being mined along the central Rand, this tremendous development is taking place there?

Hon. members have asked why we do not go in for general decentralization, apart from the border areas? I just want to say that our primary object is to decentralize to the border areas, thereby taking the factory to the worker, because we believe that that is the best socio-economic policy, because in that way not only economic problems but also social problems are solved. We do not stand alone in adopting this policy. The entire world does the same. There is hardly any country in Europe which is not busy with precisely the same thing, viz. taking the industry to the worker instead of bringing the worker to the industry. We know of the tremendous plans and activities in progress in Italy to start development in the south. Large amounts of money are being spent to initiate development in the south. The same principle is applied by Holland, Germany, Spain, France, Britain, etc. viz. decentralization, by taking the factories to the workers. In South Africa the labour force consists of the numerous Black workers. Instead of allowing the Black worker to leave his area and to go to an area where he becomes completely detribalized, it is better to take the factory to the worker so that he can live as a human being in his own area. That is the principle which is accepted throughout the world to-day. I ask my hon. friends opposite to prove that that is not so. That is the principle which is accepted internationally. Hon. members know that a World Conference is at present in progress in Geneva in which 122 states are participating. What is the object of that conference? It is to see how the less developed areas of the earth can be developed. The industrialized countries of the world are prepared to make great concessions, to grant large amounts to develop those countries where there is plenty of labour, to get a distribution of labour right throughout the world. The same principle that we are applying here is being applied in all countries, nationally and internationally. It is the principle of taking the factory to the worker. In view of the fact that this applies particularly to the non-Whites, I am prepared, if similar problems arise in the White areas, problems of a superfluity of White labour and unemployment, to work in the same direction. But, just as in the case of the border industries, we must remember that we should not simply spread individual industries all over the country; we should not just establish a factory in this or that town. Then they will not be economic. In the case of the Whites also, we shall have to select the areas. We shall have to establish small concentrations of industries in order to bring about external savings, thereby reducing the costs of those industries.

Hon. members have often spoken about the high costs of such industries. I just want to ask what costs are higher in the case of border industries? This has been mentioned so often already that it is almost tedious to do so again. There is no reason for telling me that if we build a factory at Hammarsdale it will be more expensive than to build it on the Rand, or that if we establish an industrial area at Hammarsdale or at Pongola North, the provision of water and transport and power, roads, streets, public buildings, schools, hospitals and all these concomitant things will cost more than in the heart of Durban. That cannot be said, because it is not true. The cost of erecting factory buildings is generally lower at places like Hammarsdale; land is cheaper. Let us take it further. Let us, for example, take the social costs connected with the Rand, for example; the transport of workers from one place to another; the costs resulting from crime; the concentration of traffic in the streets; the unhappiness of the worker who has to sever his tribal links. Take all these social consequences, together with the direct expenditure in regard to the building of the factory and the infrastructure which accompanies it, and then hon. members cannot tell me that the costs are higher in the case of a border industry than elsewhere. On the contrary, LJN—and perhaps hon. members will now listen—came to the following conclusion with reference to an investigation made in Italy, that the larger a centre is, the higher are the overhead social costs of establishing an industry there. UN found that if it cost 100 to establish an industry in a centre with 30,000 inhabitants, it would cost 158 to establish an industry in a centre with between 30,000 and 200,000 inhabitants, and above 200,000 it would cost 290. Those are investigations made there; they are not our investigations. It proves that if the population in an area is above 200,000, it costs practically three times as much as in an area with only 30,000 inhabitants.

In this regard I want to point out something else, too. Hon. members will perhaps be impressed by the fact that it is not only we who realize the social cost involved in the removal of workers from their tribal connection to a strange area. The International Labour Organization says the following—

The International Labour Organization says that we must prevent horizontal mobility; this movement of labour from one area to another should be prevented because it may result in great suffering and inconvenience to those people.

The hon. member for Jeppes spoke about integration. I do not think I need go too deeply into that argument. There is a difference of opinion between the hon. member and his party and us. The hon. member asked what the sense was in making certain areas Whiter and other areas Blacker. In our opinion there is very much sense in it.

I now want to pass on to another subject before dealing with individual members, and that is in regard to our exports. Various members on both sides said that it was essential that we should do our utmost to promote South Africa’s exports, and particularly the export of manufactured goods. I agree with those hon. members. If we take into consideration that for generations or decades our gold production may fall and that South Africa will have to become an industrial country, and that her industries will not only have to earn foreign currency but will also have to supply work for her people, then it is clear that we should concentrate on promoting our exports, particularly of manufactured goods. I may say briefly that my Department does everything in its power to promote exports to other countries. We do it, inter alia, through a reorganization of our own offices to make the work much more effective. We do it by increasing and improving our foreign representation, and by raising the status of our foreign representatives. It will interest hon. members to know that we have recently opened new offices in Beirut (in the Middle East), in Milan (the northern triangle of Italy), in Madrid (for Spain and Portugal), and in New Orleans (for the southern area of the United States). I can also inform hon. members that our Trade Office has been transferred from Ottawa to Montreal in Canada, and that the one at Canberra has been transferred to Melbourne. We are trying to strengthen the network of our representation throughout the world in order to promote our export potential. In the past my Department made a thorough study of import-replacement industries, but now we are also devoting attention to export-promoting industries, in other words, the type of industry we are trying to establish in South Africa which has a comparative advantage over other countries, industries whose products can compete in several countries of the world. In this regard I want to say that the promotion of exports is not merely the task of my Department and of the Government, whether we do it ourselves through our representatives or whether we do so by assisting Safto, but the industrialist and the producer should do the actual exporting. We will assist wherever possible, but they must do the actual work. Now I must say that there are several of our industrialists and producers who have acted very vigorously in this sphere, and we want to congratulate them on the results they have achieved. Here I have in mind the fishing industry, the sugar industry, the manufacturers of spare parts for motor vehicles, and the clothing industry, all of which are industries which have achieved splendid results as the result of their own activities. But there are also certain industrialists who do not want to take the trouble to export. There are certain industrialists who are doing so well in South Africa to-day that they do not want to take the trouble to seek markets abroad. I want to appeal to our South African industrialists not to be so short-sighted as just to concentrate on the local market, but to be prepared to explore the unknown territory of the export markets. I want to point out that South Africa to-day is a strong exporting country, a country which obtains 33 per cent of its net national income through exports, including gold. I think there are very few countries in the world which can claim to have such a high export percentage. And the total export figure is increasing, and last year it was R35,500,000 more than for the preceding year. Now it is true that there is not the same growth in respect of manufactured goods. We should have liked to have seen more growth there. But hon. members should please remember that if the export of manufactured goods has not increased tremendously during the past year or so, and has perhaps fallen somewhat (it is very difficult to ascertain it at the moment), it is largely due to the increased domestic demand. The local demand for capital goods and consumer goods in South Africa has increased so tremendously in recent years that producers who formerly exported their goods cannot do so to-day because they can barely satisfy the domestic market. Just consider how tremendously our sugar consumption has increased in the past six months—fantastic! I have in mind the consumption of steel in South Africa by our growing engineering industry, with the result that we can no longer export steel. I understand that certain manufacturers of spare parts who operated overseas can no longer export because the internal demand has increased so much. Therefore if there was not a great increase in exports, I repeat that it was to a large extent due to the increasing domestic consumption of those goods.

Hon. members have asked me what the position is in regard to boycotts. There are some countries which boycott us officially, and some groups which boycott us unofficially, but hitherto it has not had much effect on our economy. I think many of the boycotting countries are to-day themselves suffering from the effects of their boycotting of South African goods. I can mention various countries in Africa which are suffering tremendous damage, which have unemployment on a large scale, and where certain industries have had to close down because they boycotted South African raw materials, with the result that we are now able to capture their markets overseas. Some of these countries are gradually beginning to change their minds, and I think the day will still come when sober commonsense will prevail with most of them, and when they will be prepared to resume trading with us.

There was reference to sanctions against us. We hear a lot about that. We have heard of a congress which was recently held in Britain and to which authoritative names were coupled of people who spoke about the practical application of sanctions against South Africa. We must regard these matters soberly. We must remember that these things are given prominence in the Press, overseas and also here, out of all proportion to their actual meaning. I do not believe that sanctions of the kind threatened will ever be able to be applied to South Africa. In the first place something like that has never succeeded yet. It is practically impossible to apply sanctions of the nature envisaged by certain organizations. It can only be done at tremendous cost, and even then it would not succeed. In the second place, South Africa is fortunate in being blessed with a wealth of natural resources. If something like that were to happen, we could keep going for a long time. We are busy building up our own industries and particularly diversifying them, so much so that we are becoming self-supporting in many important respects. I must say that these threats of sanctions and boycotts are compelling us to diversify our economy as far as possible and to build up our own industries. It now appears that many industries which were formerly considered to be uneconomic can in fact be economic if they are developed properly. People are also realizing, in the third place, that sanctions, as hon. members opposite also said (and I appreciate the fact that they did so), result in more harm than good to the people whom they want to assist. In the fourth place, South Africa is of too much value to most of the countries in the world who count. South Africa is too valuable as a provider of raw materials, of gold and other minerals, and it is too valuable as a market for other countries. We are amongst the first fifteen markets of the entire Free World, and for many countries in Europe we are their greatest market outside Europe, and perhaps Asia as well. In the last instance, I think that the people of Europe are beginning to realize who are behind these boycott agitations. They are beginning to realize that it is the leftist elements, often communist inspired and financed, which want to promote Communism by using other people in an underhand manner to create disorder in South Africa and then to get in here themselves. My experience is that the public of the Western world, the great majority of them, are absolutely opposed to any boycotts and sanctions of this nature being applied to South Africa.

In these circumstances it is our task in South Africa to develop our country and to strengthen our economy. We dare not become apprehensive. We should realize that a psychological war is being waged against us, and we should never lose confidence in the future of our country and in the development of our economy. I believe that to the extent to which we confidently continue to expand and to develop, to that extent we will force other nations to respect us, and they will be less inclined to take such steps against us.

I now come to a few odd matters I want to mention. I will perhaps leave out some, because many points have been raised here, but the idea of the licensing of industries has been expressed here. I want to say immediately that this idea which was expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) as well as other hon. members is one which I am not prepared to accept at this stage. I think at this stage it would be dangerous to accept something like the licensing of industries in our country which is already being accused unjustifiably of so many things, because it would be regarded as a method adopted by the Government to obtain a greater hold and control over the economy of the country. As a State we will stand by the principle of private initiative and we want to maintain that principle as far as possible. We do no want to create any impression that we want to force industries either to go to the border areas or to any other areas. We want to keep out the element of compulsion, and I am afraid that the licensing of industries will lead people to think that we are using compulsion, and we do not want that. But if we do not license industries, there is in fact another harmless method which we might consider, namely the registration of industries. If it is practically possible to do so, I think we should try to register all industries, so that we can have a proper record of them all, their type and of what value they are to the country. But of course that has nothing to do with the licensing of industries.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked, in connection with the conference in Geneva with which I shall deal in a moment, whether we had consulted commerce and industry. Now I want to say that in connection with the World Conference of UN, that is not necessary. At that conference we are not busy negotiating and making concessions. It is a discussion of broad principles within the framework of G.A.T.T., and as to whether we will grant slight relaxations in respect of the G.A.T.T. principles. It is not necessary to consult there. Where we will perhaps have to make concessions will be in the case of the G.A.T.T. negotiations which are taking place at present. I shall come to that in a moment, and I will then tell hon. members that we shall have to submit certain proposals to G.A.T.T. in September, and in this case we shall be prepared to consult with organized industry. Where real concessions may be considered by us in terms of tariff agreements, we shall consult industry before making any such concessions or making any offer. But in regard to the International Conference sitting at present under the aegis of UN, there is no necessity for consultation.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) referred to Japan. Japan is to-day doing very good business with South Africa, and does so in spite of the high tariffs which exist. Nor do I think Japan can complain, because I think Japan does better here as compared with its business with other countries, particularly in regard to textiles. We also do good business with Japan through the sale of large quantities of raw materials, and I think it would be wrong of Japan, as I have already stated here before, to exert pressure by telling us that South Africa has a large favourable trade balance with Japan, in the sense that we sell much more to them than they sell to us. In the first place, we had an unfavourable trade balance with Japan for 17 or more years; it is only during the past three years that they have had an unfavourable trade balance with us. I think that if we go through the figures for all those years we will find, to use a popular expression, that they perhaps owe us another R90,000,000, which is the trade balance in their favour. But of course one does not set to work in that way in international trade. One does not weigh one country against another. That is wrong. One takes the globular trade. Further, Japan sells us manufactured goods which can compete with our own factories. We do not intend letting our factories be harmed by competitive Japanese-manufactured products. Japan buys raw materials from us, which does not deprive it of its labour, but creates employment there. That is quite a different thing. Even though we buy less from Japan, we are buying manufactured goods, whereas it buys raw materials and primary materials from us. One cannot compare the two. I think that if we put these thoughts to Japan, it will also be clear to them. Our relationship is particularly good, and I really do not expect any difficulties to arise in this regard.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) asked several questions regarding the I.D.C. and the utilization of funds. I shall give the hon. member all the details we can give him in writing. I cannot just work out all the figures for him here like an accountant. I regret that once in a reply I gave the hon. member a mistake slipped in when an amount of R2,000,000 was mentioned instead of R1,000,000. It was a mistake made in transmitting the information to us from the office, and I apologize for that mistake. The hon. member will receive a full exposition in so far as we are able to give it. The hon. member asked what my opinion was in regard to what Dr. Rosseau is alleged to have said. I just saw something in the newspaper and I hesitate to judge from a Press report. From the very nature of the matter it cannot be complete. I have not yet seen the complete speech. I do not know what he said, and therefore I do not want to attack or criticize him. But as far as the Government is concerned, we stand by the principle of private initiative in commercial life. In the past we stepped in only where private initiative could not or did not want to act, but in the first instance we maintain the principle of private initiative.

I want to pause to deal briefly with the last important question in connection with the conferences at Geneva. The hon. member for Jeppes referred to it. Other questions will be replied to by the Deputy Minister. At the moment two conferences are being held in Geneva. The one is the UN Conference on International Trade and Development which commenced in March and will end in the middle of June. The first part of the conference was held on a ministerial level and the last part of it will also be on that level. It is being attended by more than 122 countries, and the object of the conference is to find means of promoting the development of under-developed countries by increasing their international trade. I do not want to give a full report in regard to that matter, but the whole theme which is being discussed at that conference is what is called the trade gap, the trade gap which exists between the exports of these under-developed countries and their imports, In recent times the under-developed countries have found that they are selling increasingly less of their primary products at an increasingly lower price, and that they have to pay more for the manufactured goods they import, so that there is an increasing gap between their revenue and expenditure, with the result that they are unable to continue with their development. The object of the congress is to see how this gap can be bridged, and how the developing countries can be given greater access to the markets of the developed countries. Many proposals have been made, like the one that greater preferences and free access should be given in regard to the products of developing countries, that there should be compensatory funds, that there should be commodity agreements, that G.A.T.T.’s framework should be changed to make certain things possible. That is being proposed by the developing countries, and on the part of the developed countries favourable sentiments have been expressed, but also criticism of those proposals. I cannot go into details, but I just want to say that in three weeks’ time the Ministers will meet again and in the meantime certain proposals have been worked out by committees of officials in regard to the broad principles as to how the developing countries can be assisted, and during the latter part of the conference the Ministers will decide in regard to the proposals of the committees of officials. Another conference which I should like to mention briefly is the G.A.T.T. Conference, the so-called “Kennedy Round”. There the proposal is being discussed that all tariffs should be cut by 50 per cent, with few exceptions. They are now discussing whether that 50 per cent cut is the right one to make. That has practically been accepted as the basis of discussion. But now the problem of the disparities is being discussed—of certain countries which have 80 per cent protection against other countries which have 10 per cent or 15 per cent, and whether it will be fair to cut them all by 50 per cent, and how those disparities should be dealt with. There is talk of exceptions which should be made in regard to the 50 per cent cut. Agricultural problems are being discussed and the admission of some countries to the E.C.M., for example, agricultural countries with high protective tariffs. Those things are being discussed at the G.A.T.T. Conference. Hon. members will be interested to know that we have managed to succeed in having South Africa not classified in the group of highly developed or in the group of under-developed countries, but in recognition being granted to an intermediate group, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and as a member of this intermediate group with a special economic structure we are not expected to grant the same concessions that highly industrialized countries must grant. In other words, if they cut their tariffs by 50 per cent, we are not expected to do the same, but we should try to make an offer which will more or less balance the benefits we derive from a general 50 per cent tariffs cut. It is important to us that we are not compelled to do the same as the highly industrialized countries. We are now considering what offer we can make, and we have to submit it by 10 September, and in that regard, as I have told the hon. member for Benoni, we will consult with organized commerce and industry.

There is one point on which I think we can congratulate the hon. the Minister. One has to seek hard to find points on which one can congratulate Ministers these days. That is the way in which he put the suggestion of the licensing of industries straight into the waste-paper basket. We are very grateful to him that he has indicated that he at least is not infected like the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) by the clamping down mentality—let us call it the Press Commission mentality—that you have got to license everything.

What do you know about the matter?

What the hon. Minister has not done is to say to industry: I will not only not license you, and therefore I will not use force on you, but I will also curb my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration, when he tries to apply indirect force by denying you labour. Because that is obviously what is happening. The Minister says he is not going to use force, but the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputy Minister say: I am not going to give you permission to get your labour. If you have a labour intensive industry, then you have to take it to a border area. This Minister quite honestly says he will not use force, but I hope he will also prevent his colleague from using force to achieve the same objective. The Minister complained that we concentrated our debate on border industries. I notice that he did not deal with it at all except to talk in broad generalities of the socioeconomic plan. Of course we had concentrated on that. That is the crux of the whole of the Government’s policy, because the future of apartheid and of the Bantustans depends on the realization of the economic target that has been set to absorb the labour of the Bantustans. If border industry cannot absorb the Bantu for whom jobs must be found, not only does the border industry policy collapse, but also the whole of the ideology of the Government. When we point out that obviously border industry is not meeting the demands made of it by that ideology, the Minister complains that we are in a rut, but surely that is the crux of the issue. Development inside the reserves obviously cannot succeed without White capital and skill. We have all the evidence in the world for that. Therefore if border industries cannot carry the population of the Bantu areas, the whole of the Nationalist policy collapses. That is what we are telling South Africa and will continue to tell South Africa until South Africa realizes the hoax that has been perpetrated by making these airy promises that the solution is just around the corner. The Minister complains that the Leader of the Opposition had appealed for the decentralization of industry. Of course that is our policy. I said so when I spoke earlier. That is the policy of the United Party. We have good witnesses. The Minister of Agricultural-Technical Services in his official organ, “Boerdery”, has a leading article supporting the view of the United Party and pleading for the decentralization of industry. It has always been our policy, and it was the point which we made in this debate that the Bantu now occupied in the so-called border industries…[Interjections.] I wish this cackler would stop making a noise in the back here. We have been making the point that of the 42,000 Bantu alleged to be absorbed by border industries, the vast bulk, in fact 34,000 of them, are not employed as the result of this policy, but as the result of the normal decentralization of industries, like the Good Hope Textile Factory at Zwelitsha, which was a product of the United Party. It is our policy that where you can have economic industries decentralization is desirable, and therefore the Leader of the Opposition was doing no more than to state the policy of this party. But what is happening is that the Minister is now accepting as economic gospel the pseudo theories of the extreme left wing economist groups at UN. He is holding UN up to us as the body to which we must listen in regard to decentralization. Is he now accepting that as the economic doctrine we have to follow? I do not think so. He was trying to score a debating point and it should be made clear that if anyone was being misled by that committee it was the Minister and not this side of the House.

The last point I wish to make is that the Minister does not say one word of thanks to us on this side for making the only approach to the world which will have any effect in stopping sanctions, as was done by the hon. member for Jeppes. The Minister waved his arms with bravado and said: They cannot hurt us; it will never happen to us. The hon. member for Jeppes put the point of view of the Opposition very strongly and showed the world that they faced a united South Africa which is opposed to interference in our domestic affairs. We need friends in the West. That is the one hope the Minister has—not to beat his chest and say that the world cannot impose sanctions against us. Why not pay tribute to our international friends in Britain and America who stood by us in this regard, instead of saying: We are not grateful to you; they could not hurt us anyway?

I did say I appreciated it.

Then I apologize. I did not hear it. But it does not detract from my argument that the Minister does not accept this as the basic protection for South Africa, nor does the Minister thank our friends overseas who stood between us and the attempts to impose sanctions. At least tribute should be paid to them.

The other points which the Minister raised will be dealt with by other speakers. I think I have just time to deal with one point, and that is to debunk the comparison which the Minister tried to draw between rural development and decentralization in Europe, and what is being done here. How the Minister can compare what is being done overseas, in completely different circumstances and with a completely different objective, with what we are doing here, I do not know. There are areas available like Durban, but he says that is not a border industry area and he does not want industry there because there will be too much concentration. He is using decentralization not as an economic policy but as a political policy. Then the Minister tries to make out that he is doing no more here than the rest of the world is doing. [Time limit.]

I want to deviate somewhat from the trend in which the hon. member who has just sat down spoke. It is peculiar how these hon. members always claim everything that happens as being due to their policy. The hon. member has claimed the policy of decentralization of industries as their policy. I well remember, even before I came to Parliament, the Minister of Bantu Education introducing a private motion in connection with the decentralization of industries and it was wholeheartily supported at the time by the National Party. It sounds very Russian. Everything that happens in the scientific field to-day Russia claims for herself. The hon. member should rather confine himself to those subjects he knows something about.

I wish to deal with a few bottlenecks in our economic development, bottlenecks in the actual capital formation which will in future determine our success or otherwise in the economic struggle in which we are involved. I want to pose 11 problems which confront us in South Africa in connection with our future economic development. The first is that the Republic of South Africa is destined, not only in the political field but also in the economic field, to play a role in the international field which is completely out of all proportion to our small numbers. Just on account of our gold production we have acquired the leadership in the world and when our gold production drops we shall not be able to afford sacrificing that leadership. We shall therefore have to establish other industries to replace that gold production, because it will be our duty to retain that leadership.

The second problem is this. In solving our economic, scientific and technical problems we cannot depend much on the sympathic assistance of the world outside. Thirdly, we have a battle to fight against prejudiced opposition of an aggressive and negative nature. Fourthly, we shall have to depend on our own ability if we want to maintain our leadership. We are not in a position where we receive gifts and favours like other under-developed countries in Africa. Fifthly, we must accept the fact that the responsibility for developing the White and the large non-White communities within the borders of the Republic will be placed squarely on the shoulders of us Whites for the foreseeable future. We shall have to accept it or die. Sixthly, the interests of the Republic of South Africa are inextricably tied up with the trend of development in this Continent. We cannot untie ourselves. Seventhly, where passion and emotion influence the judgment over South Africa to-day we must not allow our vision to become blurred but we must equip ourselves so that future achievements in the scientific and technical fields will be the deciding factor. We have to face up to that squarely and that places a great responsibility on our shoulders. Eighthly, our great problem—and it in this regard hon. members opposite fail lamentably—is to identify the elements of the deathly struggle in which we are involved. It is not a physical struggle, but at this stage it is a struggle between the intellect of the world. Ninthly our problem lies in the fact that our struggle for existence has to be fought over a wide field. We have to fight that struggle in the scientific field, it concerns our defence and our industrial development, and in the economic field we have to face up to ever increasing price competition. The tenth point is that our small numbers create a real problem. In the eleventh instance, unparalleled industrial development has been switched on in South Africa. Fantastic riches in natural resources await development. This development will depend on our scientific and technological achievements. There can be no question of going back or of remaining stationary or of remaining on a plateau. I want to give an example. Ten per cent of the total turnover of products sold on the American market in 1960 were products which had not even made an appearance on the market in 1956. The influence of scientific and technical development is the prime factor; it dominates everything. [Interjections.] Accepting these submissions I wish to plead for a greater acknowledgement of our intellectual giants in this country. We have a National Education Advisory Board. I do not wish to place this matter at the door of the Minister of Education. The Minister on whose shoulders the duty will in future rest to develop and to use our scientific, technological and intellectual forces is the Minister of Economic Affairs. I want to ask that the Education Advisory Board should be instructed to make a survey of the total number of intellectual giants at our schools and that a thorough investigation should be conducted into the reasons why these intellectual giants are not trained more speedily. We do not have too many of them. The intellectual force of any nation is only between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of the entire nation. Their training should be expedited so that they will receive advanced specialized training sooner. It is urgently necessary that the potential talent be discovered and exploited at an early stage. The creative spirit does not live long. I once read a book by Leman on his monumental study of intellect and achievement, age and achievement. I want to read the following from the criticism of Terman on that book—

We should face up squarely to this need for expediting their training and the removal of all possible stumbling blocks delaying the training of these intellectuals so that they do not reach the productive stage. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him. I am very glad the hon. the Minister is still with us to-day. I want to raise a matter I have raised on previous occasions. It is one I know the Minister must be very closely associated with, and he is probably disturbed about. That is the position with regard to the import of jute goods such as woolpacks and grain bags as against the product of local manufacturers. We realize that some years ago when sanctions were applied against us by India we had to give consideration to establishing our own mills in this country. Today it seems that many hon. members are of the opinion that sanctions are still possible, although listening to the Minister himself today it seems that it is not very likely. But the point that arises is this, that we have these mills which are producing woolpacks and grain-bags of all varieties, but unfortunately the cost at which the local mills produce is nearly double the cost at which the same commodities can be imported. I have figures from the Minister’s office which prove this. Grain-bags cost 19c to import, but the same article manufactured here costs 36c. Woolpacks can be imported for just over 80c, whereas the local product is 177c. It stands to reason that this position cannot be justified. I have looked at it from every angle. I feel that we must have security in case sanctions are imposed against us. Surely we must look upon it in the light that if sanctions are imposed on us by countries producing jute, where will we get the material from to manufacture bags? Fibres are being grown here, but at a pace so slow that I do not think that in ten years’ time we will produce sufficient fibres to satisfy our requirements. Actually, at present the position is that the local fibre content in the manufactured jute goods is only 2.6 per cent, and I think that supports my argument that, unless we can produce fibres on a massive scale it will take us a very long time to satisfy our needs. I think the time has arrived when even the grain farmer, as well as the wool-grower, should know what sacrifices they ar making to maintain these mills. I have figures here in connection with the import of grain-bags for 1962-3, comprising 65,708,000 bags. These cost 19c each, whereas the local manufacturers have an order for 27,828,000, at a cost of 39c. Compare the cost of the locally manufactured bags with what it would cost us to import that quantity of bags. I calculated that it costs the producer R4,333,000, which is the difference between the cost of manufacture and the cost of importation. Further quantities were imported, approximately 90,000,000 of miscellaneous bags, for which the Department could not give the cost. But taking it again that the imported cost is about half the manufactured cost, it is easy to calculate that it costs South Africa an enormous amount of money to maintain our local mills. I feel that the Minister is probably in a position where to some extent the Government can be called upon to pay a subsidy, because at the moment it is actually the producers who are subsidizing the industry. In 1962-3 a total of 1,249,194 woolpacks were imported, at a cost of 88.75c. Locally we manufactured 987,850, at a cost of 177c. Here again the farmer had to contribute R869,803 over two years. That is a big amount for the farmers to contribute. I would suggest to the Minister that it is high time that our wool-farmers should be allowed to import their woolpacks and not have them manufactured here. [Interjection.] The hon. member says that is a drop in the ocean as compared with the grain-farmers, but that is why I say the Government should pay a subsidy. The wool-farmer does not want a subsidy; he just wants to import his packs. This position has obtained now for ten or 12 years. What has the Government done in regard to producing fibres? Practically nothing. This position cannot continue, and I appeal to the Minister to give this matter his attention. I mentioned this matter last year, too, but I got no response, because I think the Minister was away at the time, but I think the time has now arrived to look this problem straight in the face, and not to continue to call upon the producers to subsidize the industry. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him on what he has said. I want to say something about motor vehicles. It is very clear that one can approach the subject from many angles. There are many aspects of the subject which one can hardly talk about without developing a sob in the voice or the lump in the throat but because I do not wish to introduce a note of sadness I shall rather leave the subject of motor repair work and the trade in second-hand vehicles at that. I shall rather talk about new motor vehicles because a new motor-car is at least something one can be proud of.

The manufacture and assembling of new vehicles with an ever-increasing percentage of local content has already enjoyed the attention of the Government for a considerable time. I want to read from a brochure issued by the Shell Company which contains interesting information in connection with the motor assembling industry in South Africa. It says this—

I am pleased about this development. By making these concessions the Government shows that it is serious in developing our own motor industry and that it wishes to develop it to the maximum. They also talk favourably about the manufacture of spare parts in which respect a great deal is being done. I read the following from the same source—

Furthermore, the Bureau of Standards says the following in their 1963 annual report—

This fact, Sir, denotes enterprise and an ever-increasing emphasis on quality. Without sounding too disparaging or too critical I want to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister particularly in regard to the quality of certain spare parts that are manufactured in South Africa. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that I, and possibly every other hon. member of this House, know of shocking cases concerning the quality of the spare parts used in our vehicles. I am not going to give examples because I do not want to do any company an injustice; nor am I going to mention the name of the assembly factories because I do not want to do them an injustice either but I have surprising information at my disposal. I have reason to believe—and I think I can prove it—that certain problems we encounter in respect of spares for 1964 model motor-cars will be minor in comparison with the problems we shall encounter in respect of 1965 model vehicles. I shall leave the matter at that but it is very clear that as far as certain spare parts manufactured in South Africa are concerned we are going to have trouble. Then I just want to ask the Minister this: In view of the policy to which I referred at the beginning is it the policy of the Government to make concessions to every company, irrespective of the quality of the parts it uses in its vehicles, and are we only going to take into account the percentage of South African manufactured parts used?

The manufacturers in this field must remember that the public of South Africa is prepared to pay, but they are only prepared to pay for quality. The demand for motor vehicles is exceedingly high. I know the manufacturers and the assembler try to meet this demand but if they are trying to do that they should not simply throw quality overboard in their effort, as has been the unfortunate experience of many buyers recently. It is all the more important to control quality when we bear in mind that there is talk that South African manufactured spares will be used in motor-car engines as well. We want the South African product but that South African product must be of undisputable quality. I mention this matter because I do not want South African motor manufacturers to lose their reputation right from the word go because certain manufacturers ignore quality.

The hon. member who has just sat down must forgive me for not replying to his contribution to the debate but I want to return to the replies given by the hon. the Minister to certain members who have already spoken. I want to refer in particular to the fact that the hon. the Minister, as far as commerce and industry were concerned, painted a particularly rosy picture to us without dealing with the problems we have to contend with in that respect. The hon. Minister must not hold it against us if we deal with those problems and he must not say that we are so critical that we spread untrue stories in the world outside. In a country which has to face up to the problems the Republic of South Africa has to face up to people are obliged to go into the question of what the Department and the Government are doing to stimulate trade. The hon. the Minister told us that 33 per cent of the products of the country were already being exported and that we were one of the first 15 countries in the world as far as our exports were concerned. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister made no mention of the fact that had the standard of living of all sections of our population been as high as the standard of living of the other 14 countries, we would have had very little to export. The hon. the Minister, however, did say that to the extent to which local consumption increased to that extent would our production increase. The hon. Minister then made a statement which always frightens me. As soon as a Minister of Commerce and Industry in any country maintains that his country is becoming self-sufficient, as soon as he says that the industrial growth is of such a nature that the country can practically meet all its needs, I get frightened. A country cannot be self-sufficient because it has to trade and those countries which are most self-sufficient, like America, are countries that have to depend on trade. The moment a country becomes self-sufficient, the moment its industrial production reaches the maximum tempo—and we have not yet reached that stage by far, as the hon. the Minister himself said—it has a tremendous amount of articles to export and if there is no reciprocity of trade it simply cannot export those articles. It is ludicrous to talk about the possibility of a country becoming self-sufficient. America is a country which is self-sufficient; she can practically meet all her needs but she is also the country which has to do the most trade, so much so that she has to lend dollars to a multitude of countries so that they can trade with her. That is the position in which a country which is self-sufficient finds itself. Mr. Chairman, I go further. The hon. Minister’s Department encourages the establishment of industries, whether it be in the border areas or somewhere else. I do not want to go into that matter but the fact remains that industries in a country reach the maximum stage of production when they start working two or more shifts. While I am on this subject I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many of our industries already work two shifts; what percentage work two shifts? Is an industry working at capacity and is a nation fully employed unless it works on the basis of two shifts and eventually on the basis of three shifts? If we have not as yet reached that stage we are entitled to ask the Department why it does not do everything in its power to encourage the establishment of as many industries as possible.

I want to come to another matter referred to by the hon. Minister. The hon. the Minister said his Department did everything in its power in regard to export markets. He went further and referred to a series of foreign trade services in overseas countries which have been augmented. If I understand the position correctly it seems to me that in the past year no fewer than four foreign trade offices have been closed down, namely, in Central West Africa, Nairobi and Kenya amongst others. We have withdrawn five members of our trade personnel in Singapore. The hon. Minister referred to Beirut but that service was already in existence last year. I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that we do not have a trade representative in Spain. That nation consists of 30,000,000 civilized Whites but we do not have a trade representative there.

We have one there.

I find no reference to him in the Estimates but the hon. the Minister assures me that we do have a representative there. But we do not have one in Portugal.

We have the one in Spain.

I expected that reply. The hon. the Minister must not tell me that a trade attache in Spain can also cover Portugal. Just as little must he tell me that a trade representative in Beirut can also cover Turkey and Syria and other countries of the Near East. It is simply impossible. Nor must the hon. the Minister tell me that a trade representative in Sweden can cover Norway and Denmark. If the hon. the Minister knows what the position is there as well as I hope he does he will know that a trade representative in Sweden hardly does any business in Norway. Although the Department does everything in its power, according to the Minister, to extend our trade I do not notice any new trading offices in this long list. Let us summarize the cardinal things the Department of Commerce and Industry must do in connection with the promotion of trade. Surely the first prerequisite is the appointment of a trade representative, and surely the second is the spending of money at international exhibitions and shows to display one’s country’s products. We did little in this regard in the past. As far as Spain and Portugal are concerned the Minister now assures me that there is a trade representative in Spain and I am pleased to hear that. There is no trade representative in Portugal as yet but the Minister says our representative in Spain covers both countries. I want to go further and deal with a country like Israel. In the first place a large section of our population is closely linked with Israel and in the second place we know that Israel requires a vast amount of raw materials for her own industrialization. Israel is highly industrialized today and can use large quantities of our raw materials. Is it not worthwhile appointing a trade representative in Israel? Is it not worthwhile appointing one in Turkey? I want to go further and deal with Latin America. The hon. Minister must not think that a trade representative in the Argentine and in Brazil can also cover Uruguay and Chile and Peru and Venezuela and all those countries which trade on a large scale. Those are countries which want manufactured goods above anything else. Their manufacturing industries are not as strong as ours. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying that the sanctions and boycotts that are being applied to us have no effect. Say what you like, Sir, but there are countries which do not trade with us. The entire Africa to our north, with the exception of Southern Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories, no longer trades with us. But it goes much further than that: We find it difficult to trade with the Near East; India no longer trades with us; we no longer trade with the majority of countries in the world. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to accompany the hon. member who has just sat down on his world tour; I should like to take off the lid in respect of another matter and say something in connection with our fishing industry. The tremendously big catches of anchovy fish off our west coast during the past weeks have once again focused the attention on one of the biggest industries, one of our most valuable assets in the Western Cape, namely, our fishing industry, an industry which is to-day already earning us more foreign exchange than our important wine industry in the Western Cape; an industry which is also in strong competition with our fruit-growing industry in this regard. I maintain that this new discovery, these catches of anchovy, will once again stimulate our fishing industry to reach new heights. Catches of this type of fish during the last few years have been the cause of the total revolution which has taken place in the fishing industry of Peru. That has led to Peru being the world’s greatest producer of fish meal to-day. I trust the Government will give this new feature in our fishing industry all possible assistance. Over the past 15 years our fishing industry has in general gone ahead by leaps and bounds. The tale of our fishing industry is a tale of great progress. Not only has the State given sufficient assistance but it has given a great deal of assistance in this connection. Think of what the industry itself has done; think of the contribution which a body like Fishcor has made to our fishing industry. In spite of this, however, I wish to make two points: In spite of all this I maintain that the time and circumstances have never been more opportune for greater thinking and greater action in respect of our fishing industry and sea research in general than the present. At the present moment there is, what I shall call, world-wide interest in the possibility of utilizing the unexploited areas of the sea for the benefit of mankind, and it is logical that that should be so, because I think the sea comprises nearly 71 per cent of the earth’s surface. When we think of what is being done to-day in the field of space research, what is being done in the direction of sea research is only a drop in the ocean. I think we can expect the State to do even more in this respect. In these days when an interest is being taken in oceanology the State will have to see to it that we are scientifically and technically equipped and in this respect there is still unlimited room for greater assistance on the part of the State particularly in view of the fact that we in South Africa have a coastline of approximately 2,000 miles. I am convinced that the oceans which surround our large country hide the secret of great riches, riches which wait to be discovered and I think the State can afford to do still infinitely more in this regard.

As far as the fishing industry as such is concerned I wish to refer to three aspects, without having any motive for doing so, aspects to which I should like the Minister to give his attention. In the first place I wish to refer to the technology of fishing. When we look at the large and well-equipped fishing vessels of Russia and Spain and Japan which touch at our harbours it is obvious that, as far as the technology of fishing, equipment and fishing methods in general are concerned, we are lagging far behind these countries. It is felt in all quarters, for instance, that our tuna fishing industry will not develop to its fullest extent unless more economic methods of catching are evolved. Then I also want to refer to the incidence and catching techniques of shrimp in our South African waters. These are only two aspects in respect of which I think the State can be of great assistance to us.

The second aspect I wish to mention is the possibility of building a factory ship for South Africa. I think this is a matter which the State can no longer overlook and that the time has arrived for us to give attention to the building of a large factory ship. I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister what the Government’s attitude is in this regard.

The third factor I wish to mention and to which we should give attention is this: This huge industry deserves more assistance to-day; it particularly needs guidance from the State with a view to getting the people to make better use of the rich crops we gather from the sea. The State will have to make a bigger contribution so that we can make the people aware of the benefits they can derive from using sea products. It is estimated that we are only eating 8 per cent of the fish that are caught. Ninety per cent of the industry is based on export. It is an asset on the one hand but on the other hand this is a matter which ought to receive our serious attention and which cannot simply be left to the industry as such. It is remarkable that the Bantu labourers on the mines, apparently as a result of proper enlightenment, are the biggest consumers of fish products in the country to-day. Fifteen years ago less than 2,000,000 lbs. of fish were consumed by these people, and to-day they consume more than 20,000,000 lbs., i.e. approximately 40 lbs. per person per annum. The consumption in Japan, Iceland, Norway and Sweden is more than 50 lbs. per person; in the United States of America and Portugal it is 30 lbs. per person per annum at the moment, and in this country it is only approximately 12 lbs. per person. One can become lyrical about the benefits which flow from using fish in preference to meat products, particularly in the case of ladies who want to lose weight and persons who have heart trouble. This is a matter in regard to which the State can definitely also do its share instead of simply leaving it to the industry as such.

I wish to conclude my plea for greater thinking and greater action with a quotation in this connection which I regard as very imaginative. The quotation reads as follows—

These imaginative words were used in a speech made by the Deputy Minister last year when he opened the Harvest Festival of the Sea in my constituency. I want to conclude by saying that I hope his wonderful imagination will soon take him further so that, with the guidance of the State, he will be able to do infinitely more for our fishing industry than is being done at the moment.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) has advocated certain new developments in the fishing industry. I can only say that as far as anchovy is concerned certain experiments were made some months ago by Fishcor in co-operation with the fishing companies. Six nets of finer mesh than the ordinary mesh were used in these experiments, with considerable success, and the result is that representations were made for the number of nets to be increased. Permission was granted for the acquisition of an additional 20 nets, which will bring the total to 26. It looks as though this experiment was a success, and it is ‘possible that this anchovy industry will be able to supplement our catches of larger fish. The experiment has not yet reached the stage where it is possible to determine the constancy of the shoals and to what extent we can build up our fishing industry on this, but we hope to have more clarity in this regard in the near future.

The hon. member also referred to sea research. I can only say that the C.S.I.R. has an Oceanographic Division which devotes its attention to sea research but there are also other groups which are interested. Discussions were also held recently with other bodies and further discussions will take place again early next month. The Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch have also indicated that they would like to participate in this further investigation.

As far as a factory ship is concerned the position is that Fishcor, in co-operation with a committee representing certain fishing concerns, investigated the possibility of acquiring a factory ship and manufacturing fish meal. There are many problems attached to it. That committee reported last year but it looks as though the bodies concerned are not very enthusiastic about this idea. It may be much more economical to do this on land rather than at sea. There is always the danger, if these factory ships are allowed to catch fish, even if it is laid down that they may only do so outside of our traditional waters, that they may insist later on, when the fish become scarce, on the right to catch within our traditional waters and perhaps even within our territorial waters. Our existing factories on land would then be adversely affected. It is felt that further experiments should be undertaken; that a factory ship should perhaps be hired jointly by the interested parties to determine what the possibilities are in this connection.

As far as fishing harbours are concerned the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) asked what the position was in connection with Cape Town. He referred to the small amount of R734,000 which will be expended this year. But this forms part of projects which will cost more than R4,000,000. As far as Cape Town itself is concerned the C.S.I.R. is at present instituting investigations into the question of erosion on the Table Bay beaches. The first phase of this research is designed to determine what the effect of erosion is on the coast. The present constructional work on the coast has almost been completed and it is expected that the first report will be completed in June. Thereafter a start will be made with the next phase which is to determine what protective works should be erected in the case of further harbour construction and what the costs are likely to be. The question of determining the terrain, whether it should be Paarden Island or Rietvlei, is also closely connected with the possibility of ship building. This whole matter is at present being investigated by the hon. the Minister of Transport and as soon as the investigation has been completed we may perhaps have more clarity with regard to the question as to what would be the obvious site for this fishing harbour.

Other important work to which Fishcor is giving its attention is the question of a central haven for the large fishing boats in the area of St. Helena Bay. The report has already been completed. Certain negotiations are being conducted at the moment, and it is possible that this matter will also be cleared up in the near future. As far as Saldanha Bay is concerned, negotiations are going on with the Department of Defence, and there too certain extended facilities are being contemplated. As far as Mossel Bay is concerned, a committee consisting of representatives of my Department and the S.A. Railways has also been appointed to determine what can be done to improve the harbour facilities there. There are quite a few other harbours which are insisting on the provision of facilities, but all these things have to be tackled systematically. It is impossible to meet all the requirements immediately.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) asked what the intention was in establishing the fertilizer factory at Phalaborwa. The reply is that the double-phosphate will be packed and also granulated at Phalaborwa. That is the latest information at my disposal.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) has asked whether the committee has already been appointed. A meeting, under the auspices of the Council for the Development of Natural Resources, was held in February of this year at Potchefstroom where all interested bodies, including the three Provincial Administrations, were represented. Instructions were given that the whole of the Vaal basin was to be investigated—its potential, the possibilities of expansion, its water problems, its developmental possibilities, etc. There is a broad auxiliary committee as well as a technical committee. The bodies concerned were approached and asked to let us have the names of their nominees for this committee. I do not have the names of the persons who were nominated but I shall let the hon. member know who they are as soon as I have obtained that information.

The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch) asked for the supply of electric power in the rural areas. He referred to the annual report of Escom for 1962 in which it is indicated that 786 farms were linked up in 1962. More and more farms are being linked up every year. In 1957 only 273 were linked up; in 1958 490 were linked up; in 1960 the number increased to more than 600; in 1961 there were 734 and in 1962 786. Quite a number of other schemes were investigated but, as the hon. member correctly mentioned, the farmers do not always go in for these schemes because of the cost involved. Section 4 of the Escom Act lays down the general principle that the commission, as far as practicable, must conduct its undertakings in such a way that it makes no profit and suffers no loss, and that it must adjust its charges accordingly from time to time. The fact of the matter is that there are sufficient economic schemes which are waiting to be tackled by Escom. The demand for power is constantly growing. I can refer the hon. member by way of example to Viljoenskroon, which is near to the hon. member’s constituency and where very many farms have been provided with electricity. I am aware of the investigations which were instituted in the hon. member’s constituency and I am aware of the fact that the farmers were not prepared to go in for this scheme because of the cost. If such a scheme has to be subsidized, the question always arises to what extent it should be subsidized. The same representations were made by the S.A. Agricultural Union. Those representations were referred to the Electricity Control Board to investigate this whole matter. A circular letter was drawn up in co-operation with the Agricultural Union and Escom. This circular was sent to all the agricultural associations. The reason for that is set out in the circular itself—

A questionnaire was drawn up and the assistance of the farmers’ associations was invited. We have now been informed by the S.A. Agricultural Union, however, that this attempt failed dismally and that they were unable to rely on the assistance of the farmers’ associations to make the necessary information available to them. Hon. members will appreciate that before any form of subsidization can be considered the scope of the problem must first be determined. If we embark on a scheme of subsidization then practically all rural electricity schemes will also have to be subsidized, and in the nature of things it may assume very large proportions.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has referred to scientists. A register of scientists is at present being compiled. The method of compiling it has already been agreed upon, and the bodies which have been charged with this responsibility are giving their urgent attention to the compilation of a register of scientists. The promotion of scientific education is also a matter which has been entrusted to the Scientific Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. They are already engaged, in co-operation with the Education Council, in establishing educational facilities and drawing up recommendations as to what should be done in this connection. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) spoke very eloquently about the achievements and the prospects of the fishing industry in South Africa. I subscribe wholeheartedly to every word he has said. Both he and the hon. the Deputy Minister, who followed him, spoke of the important part the State and the companies had to play and of the valuable asset the country had in the fishing industry. I think, however, that they omitted to mention possibly the most important part of that great industry, the fishermen themselves. I have always thought that we had as valuable an asset in the fishermen who fish off our coasts as in the fishing industry itself. I have always felt that we should have recruited from them for our naval force; we can give them and their sons opportunities in the navy. In addition to that they could be trained as a naval reserve during the periods when the fishing industry is not active.

Our Prime Minister is a good fisherman.

He is not a fisherman, he is an angler.

I should like to refer to a question I asked the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs at the beginning of this Session. I asked whether it had come to his attention that an announcement had been made by the banks to the effect that they were going to impose a 2c levy on all cheques paid in, over a certain number. The hon. Minister said in his reply that he had obtained the necessary information and that he was carrying out an investigation. I pointed out to him that the building societies had announced that they were passing that extra levy on to the public. The hon. the Minister said this afternoon that we had prosperity without inflation. I am going to deal with two simple cases of inflation. The hon. Minister should ask the ordinary housewife whether we have inflation. He should ask the Native worker whether he can come out on his pay at the present time. Why did we pass a Rents Act through this House if there were no inflation? Of course, we have inflation. We are paying the price for the prosperity we are enjoying to-day. I did not get a reply from the hon. the Minister to my question. He only told me that he was carrying out an investigation. A month later I asked him again whether he had completed his investigation and he said “No”—that was all. I should like to assist him in his investigation by telling him what happened in Australia. In Australia they do not have a flat rate of 2 cents per cheque but the banks agreed, after discussion, that they would have a sliding scale so that the big institutions which deposited thousands of cheques would not pay 2 cents per cheque but a smaller amount. I can give him the actual scale if he is interested. That is one suggestion. But together with that it was suggested and agreed that a new system be introduced for the whole of Australia, that inland exchange—we call it commission on country cheques—should be abolished altogether. It has always seemed absurd to me that in our country, which is not a great country geographically, we should have to pay 5 cents or 10 cents or 20 cents commission on a country cheque because it goes from one part of the country to another. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that in any adjustment that is made in regard to this 2 cent levy he should consider the total abolition of commission on country cheques. That is my first point.

My second point is this: I should like the hon. the Minister to use in influence with the Minister of Transport to give us in the interior a fairer deal in regard to the price of petrol. I know the hon. the Minister has not the final authority in the matter but he can certainly use his influence. In reply to a question I put to the hon. Minister of Transport he told me the price of transporting a gallon of petrol through the new pipeline was estimated to be less than 1 cent per gallon from Durban to Johannesburg—.92 cent per gallon, and that the cost he was going to charge would be 7 cents, i.e., a profit of 660 per cent! Well, Sir, I think the interior is being asked to pay too much. The hon. the Minister mentioned last year that Sasol had to be protected. I have no objecting to helping Sasol. It has a certain strategic value. We thought at one time that more Sasols were to be established because of the strategic value they would have. I have no objection to that. But if there is to be a subsidy for Sasol it should come out of general revenue, probably out of the Defence Fund, because I think it is chiefly maintained for that strategic purpose. That is my second point.

In conclusion I wish to deal with the Minister’s announcement this afternoon that we are living in very prosperous times; that we were in fact enjoying a boom and that there is great prosperity in the country. Why have we that prosperity? Why is South Africa prosperous? I think because the Bantustan apartheid policy has broken down. The answer is this: We have been asked in the past to make great sacrifices to carry out the Bantustan scheme. We were told that the Whites in the White areas would have to do their own work. In fact we had two members of this House setting an example by doing their own cooking and washing up to show that we could get on without Natives. If you say you can get on without Natives in the White area the obvious thing is to try to do so. But what we are doing to-day is to bring in more and more Natives. It is an inevitable process. If you want prosperity you must have this extra labour. We did the same thing with the Whites. We had a Carnegie Commission. It considered the depopulation of the platteland. We had a special commission to consider that problem. They sat for several years but we did not succeed in keeping the people on the platteland. Farmers came to town; the children came to town. Where are the children of those children? They are the leaders in industry, in commerce. I am sure my hon. friends know many of them. The same process is now taking place in the case of the Native population. It was all foretold. There is nothing new in it. It was foretold by that commission that was known as the Industrial and Agricultural Farmers’ Commission, generally referred to as the van Eck Commission. This was what the van Eck Commission had to say before this process had developed as it has to-day. Discussing this movement of the Natives to the cities they say—

It is a perfectly natural process. It has taken place in Europe; it has taken place in the United States of America. In the U.S.A. only one man in 12 works on the land. Eleven out of 12 are in occupations other than farming. We in our country can naturally not develop in that way, not for many, many years. But the process that took place in the movement of the White population a generation ago is now taking place in the movement of our Native population. On that rests our prosperity and on that rests the boom we are enjoying in South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has referred to the 2c levy on cheques. Negotiations have been conducted with the banks to ascertain whether they are not prepared to reduce the levy. Their reply is that they need these additional funds because their expenses have risen enormously. It is not possible to exercise control over this 2c levy under the price control regulations. This Department, with the powers at its disposal under the price control legislation, is not in a position to reduce this levy. It may perhaps fall under the jurisdiction of the bodies under whom the control of financial institutions fall.

The hon. member also referred to inflation. According to the latest data made available by the Bureau of Statistics there is by no means as much inflation as he suggests. When we compare the consumers’ index for March this year with the index for March last year we find that in Cape Town, for example, the index in respect of all items stood at 107.4 a year ago whereas it now stands at 108.3, which represents an increase of .9 per cent for the year. As far as the Witwatersrand is concerned the index has increased from 105.6 to 106.6 that is to say, an increase of 1 per cent over a period of a year. In the case of food the figures are even lower. In Cape Town the index in respect of food over the past year has risen from 106.6 to 106.7. In the case of the Witwatersrand it has risen from 102.7 to 102.9, in other words, there has been an increase of .2 per cent over the past year. There has not been such a sharp increase in food prices and in the prices of domestic commodities as the hon. member suggested here.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) wants to know why trade offices are not being opened in a number of countries which he mentioned. He mentioned about six countries in South America. He said that we ought to have a separate trade office in each of the Nordic countries and one in Spain and one in Portugal. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to appoint a trade representative in every country, firstly because of the manpower position and, secondly because of the costs involved. The Department has no alternative but to work on a selective basis and that is why we only have representatives in those countries where there is the greatest need and in those countries with which we do the greatest volume of trade or which offer the greatest possibilities of expansion.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) has referred to the price of imported bags. We are making provision for the stock-piling of a considerable number of additional bags, but this naturally involves expense. There are insurance charges, storage charges, etc. All these charges affect the internal price of bags. Our policy is to keep these industries going and to import jute. The Pakistan Government have imposed a substantial levy on raw jute because they are anxious to protect their jute industry. The result is that the raw jute costs more than bags delivered here, where those bags are manufactured in Pakistan. But we want to encourage our own bag industry and our own fibre industry. That is why we entered into agreements about a year or two ago with 109 individual farmers, as well as with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, for the cultivation of Phormium tenax. Hitherto they have been paid R126 per ton but as from 1 January 1964 they will only be paid the guaranteed price of R130 and R70 for web-thread and woof-thread respectively. This will possibly bring down the costs. It is essential to encourage the local industry. We may be placed in the position that jute supplies are cut off and we must then be able to produce substitutes locally. There are also other bodies which are producing kenaf. Great headway has already been made with these experiments but it is still not possible to produce bags economically. The investigations are nevertheless being proceeded with. In these circumstances it is not desirable therefore to do away entirely with the manufacturing of bags locally but rather to encourage it because we are making progress in this direction.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 33.—“Mines”, R10,119,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half hour? I should like, in opening the debate on this Vote, to record a very special word of thanks to the Chamber of Mines for having made it possible for members from both sides of this House to visit various mines. They showed us some of the old mines; they showed us the newer development on the Far West Rand and in the Free State. I believe that they have rendered a very valuable service to this House by making it possible for us to learn a little more about this very great industry of ours. For my part, Sir, I say we owe them a very great debt of gratitude. I hope they will from time to time make it possible for hon. members of this House to see the ramifications of this tremendous industry of ours. All of us were tremendously impressed by the new training methods which are being used, by the precautions which are being taken in respect of safety. I believe we acquired valuable knowledge—I certainly did—not only of the extent of the industry, something which one does not realize from merely seeing the mines around you as I have done for such a long period of my life, but of seeing how fortunate we were in having this widespread gold producing industry which is unparalleled in the world. Mr. Chairman, I therefore record the thanks of myself and, I believe, of all other hon. members for a memorable tour which I hope will continue to be of value to each of us in making what contribution we can.

I wish to deal more particularly with a subject which has often been under discussion in this House. The question is that of marginal mines and the problems arising from them. I think all of us are pleased that the Government, which has been urged over a long period of years by this side of the House to do something about preserving these mines as payable units as long as is possible, has at last started doing something in regard to the matter. I am very glad that the Minister of Finance referred to this matter in his Budget speech. He said—

This shows how fortunate we are in this country in being able to spend that sum, because when one looks at the figures we realize what an enormous proportion of this revenue comes directly or indirectly from this great industry.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that when the Government found a further nest egg, and that further steps are contemplated. The hon. the Minister said the Government would consider making further provision in this regard. All of us welcome that. My plea to-day to the hon. the Minister and to the Government is that the Government must not continue to deal with this matter on the basis of a hand out here and there. I wish to make an appeal that they should approach this matter scientifically; that this matter should be thoroughly investigated; that we should see to it that we keep our mines producing as long as we possibly can and that, in respect of the areas which have been developed largely through the mines, we encourage industries so that the prosperity of those areas will be maintained. I hope we shall continue to make use of the very valuable assets in the form of electric power and water supplies which are already available in the areas where mining is coming to an end. I also hope that we shall make full use of the housing. It is known that in establishing a new industry in a new area the cost of establishing a new industry with European labour is never less than a figure in the neighbourhood of R9,000 per man. In respect of these areas where mines are gradually going out of production the facilities required, to a large extent are already there. Obviously they are part of our national assets. I wish to quote from the presidential address for 1963 of the then President of the Chamber of Mines, Mr. P. H. Anderson, which was delivered on 24 June, last year, in which I think he put the position very, very well indeed. I would like to read a short extract. Under the heading “Marginal Ore” he says—

Here I would interpolate that we know that the costs of mining in this country are gradually rising all the time. Mr. Anderson proceeds—

Then he goes on—

In the course of our tour, we saw a very good example of a mine of this type in the Crown Mines, one of the great mines of this country, where there are enormous quantities of ore which can only be mined if there is a realistic attitude on the part of the State and ways and means are found to make it possible to continue extracting that ore—to get the benefit of the gold which is there. We were assured that in that particular case once an area has been bypassed and that section has been closed—and there are very big areas which fall into this category—it would never again be profitable to seek to extract that ore. This is a serious matter so far as this country is concerned and from a long-range point of view it is of the utmost importance to the future of this country.

It is quite clear that we have additional gold mines which are yet to be opened up. It is possible that we will have the fortune to find new fields, although intensive search over quite a lengthy period has not been as successful as had been hoped. But it is quite obvious that if South Africa is to maintain her present prosperity, if she is to continue to progress economically as we all hope she will at the same rate at which she has expanded in recent times, then obviously we cannot afford in the years which lie ahead to allow the eyes to be picked out of the mines and to find in the end that a great deal of marginal ore remains which can never be mined.

This is a matter of the very greatest importance, and the plea that I wish to make today is that the Government should face up to the responsibility which is undoubtedly upon it to examine this matter scientifically, to drop this idea of doing something in this Budget and something in the next Budget. My submission is that the time has come when the Government with the full advice of the Chamber of Mines and the various mining groups should get down to this problem and try and work out a national plan which will ensure that South Africa will get the maximum benefit, firstly from the ore which is there and secondly, the maximum benefit of the very great assets which have been built up in various areas through the development of the mining industry in those areas. This will ensure that the assets will be preserved by making it possible for those areas to remain productive areas, to remain prosperous areas through the gradual replacement of the mines by the industries which are essential if the prosperity of those areas is to be maintained.

It was mentioned earlier to-day by the hon. the Minister that so far as Johannesburg is concerned, mining is coming to an end. We know that that is so. But we must remember that in respect of the old Witwatersrand, that is from Springs to Krugersdorp the mining production, even at the present time, is greater than that of any country in the world other than South Africa. The enormous production in that area is shown by the fact that countries such as Russia, with all the efforts that they have made, even at this stage, cannot produce the quantity of gold which we are producing to-day in the old Witwatersrand area which has been worked out to a very large extent. We know that in that area industries have taken over to a very large extent. It is absolutely essential that that process should be continued, and I hope that one of the things which the Government will adopt as its policy that in all circumstances the prosperity of the areas where mining is gradually disappearing will be maintained at the present level. In that way the prosperity of those areas can be maintained; not to do so would be a blow not only to those areas but to the whole of the national economy.

It is my submission that the Government should take steps for this matter to be examined thoroughly, so that there can be adequate planning. I submit that the aim that we should have is that we should mine all the gold that we reasonably can. Already over the last few years, mines have closed which could have been kept going for quite a time had a different policy been followed. Secondly, I submit that we should especially endeavour to make the maximum use, that is to extract the maximum amount of reef which can be extracted, while it is possible to do so, for in a very large number of cases once a section has been closed or a particular mine has been closed down, it will not at a future stage be possible to arrange for the mining of that area. Apart from ensuring that we do not leave large quantities of gold in the ground, we must exploit those mines to the greatest extent we can in every respect. Above all, I believe that there rests an enormous duty on the Government, and I repeat it because I believe it cannot be repeated too often, to maintain the prosperity of the present mining areas, whether in the old central Witwatersrand area, on the wings of the Reef, or in the areas further to the West and the areas down into the Free State—the maintenance of the prosperity of those areas is of the utmost importance to the future of South Africa. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to consider this matter and that the Government will be prepared to act. I am quite sure that the very great ability of those who have been responsible for the building of this great industry can play a tremendous part in helping the Government in making plans to maintain the prosperity of these areas. I believe we should do something more than merely to maintain the present prosperity. The towns should be alive and thriving and should be kept as such. If this is done, then gradually of course there can be a change over to industry; that can take place over a long period. The process of further industrialization need not be so rapid if the Government realistically faces up to the problem of the relatively low-grade pre which is available for the taking and which cannot be mined unless a realistic policy is followed in regard to this matter. I believe it is a matter of enormous public importance. I believe we in South Africa do not realize just to what an extent the whole of South Africa owes a great debt of gratitude to those who have developed our mines to the extent that they have. It is on that to a very large extent that our present prosperity has been based. The growth of our industries has been possible because of the mine development and the further industries and the growth of our agricultural industry have to a large extent been placed on the sound footing they are by the great market which we have in this country for their products. Thus the maintenance of the prosperity of these older mines, the exploitation of the resources there are in gold under the ground to the greatest possible extent to the benefit of this country is something of the utmost importance to all sections in South Africa, and I repeat, requires the most earnest consideration of the Government. If one of the Reef towns at some time in the future becomes a ghost town our experience will parallel what has been found overseas: namely: Once you allow one area to cease to be prosperous, lack of prosperity spreads to the adjoining areas. We have the resources in this country through proper planning to ensure that there will be no retrogression and no ghost towns and that rather in place of possible ghost towns, we will retain a thriving area which will continue to play an enormous part in maintaining the strength and the prosperity of this country.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has raised a matter here about which everybody in this House is apparently concerned, and I want to congratulate him on the objective way in which he approached this problem. The question of marginal mines has often been discussed in this House, and the irony of the situation is really that once the stage has been reached where the gold in a mine has been exhausted, there is no single measure which can assist that mine. But it is important to ensure that every ounce of gold which may still lie hidden underground should be brought to the surface. I agree that the economic growth, the economic upsurge, the economic stability in our country, is due in very large measure to gold-mining development in our country. There we are all agreed. The Government has always in the past adopted a very sympathetic attitude towards our marginal mines. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has referred here to the fact that provision has often been made in the Budget in recent years for assistance to the marginal mines, but we agree, as I have already said, that when there is no longer gold in payable quantities in a mine, there is nothing that can be done to assist such a mine. We also agree and indeed advocate that scientific methods should be devised to keep such a mine going as long as possible and to bring every ounce of gold which may still be underground to the surface before the mine is closed. In that regard I want to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Germiston (District.) I think the Minister will be prepared to cause a scientific investigation to be instituted to determine what methods we can apply.

But we must not lose sight of the fact that the mines themselves also have certain obligations; that they will also have to keep abreast of the times and make use of the scientific methods which have been devised for the mining of gold; that they will have to introduce mechanization and bring down their costs of production. Much can also be done by the owners of mines to prevent mines reaching the stage where they are no longer sufficiently payable to warrant the extraction of all the remaining gold in the mine. We are not concerned so much about the closing of mines because it has already been proved in practice on the Rand that where mines have closed it has not led to a reduction of the population in those towns. The assets to which the hon. member for Germiston (District) referred in the shape of existing services, housing, power and water are very great assets which can be harnassed for industrial purposes in those towns. On the East Rand, for example, we know that industrial development has always followed where gold-mining development has come to a standstill. We would advocate therefore that attention be given to the question of encouraging industrialists to give priority to the establishment of capital-intensive industries in those places where gold mines are closed. I know that the Government is sympathetic and that there will be no difficulty in this connection.

The decision of the Government to help certain marginal mines by granting loans to cover losses up to 10 per cent of revenue and approved capital expenditure has been well received. I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance acted wisely when he made these loans facilities available to marginal mines. This concession has given these mines the opportunity to open up and exploit large deposits of ore which in normal circumstances would have been unpayable. My criticism of the Minister and the Government, however, is that these facilities have been made available at too late a stage and to too small an extent. Too little has been done too late. When we criticized the hon. the Minister earlier this year on this matter we were informed that our criticism was not justified. If that criticism was not justified, may I in justification quote the chairman of the City Deep who, in his report a few weeks ago, at the Annual General Meeting of the City Deep, said:

Similarly, the chairman of the Crown Mines pointed out that 2,000,000 tons of ore just below the pay limit would never have been available for exploitation unless this concession had been made available and that that mine would have had to close prematurely. Similarly, the chairman of the Robinson Deep said that 1,250,000 tons of roughly 4.6 pennyweights would not have been exploited and could not have been used, if Government assistance had not been available and that the hoisting of the ore would not have been able to continue after June 1965. These are authoritative and expert criticisms of the actions of the Government which have come practically too late in order to save the situation. We ask of the hon. the Minister: “Had these facilities been made available earlier, would mines such as Brakpan, Modder East, Government Gold Mines, Rietfontein Consolidated, Dominion Reefs, Village Main Reef and Simmer and Jack not still have been in existence to-day?” The hon. Minister, when replying today to a question which I put to him enquiring as to what investigations were being carried out in order to prolong the lives of mines, said:

Did we have to wait eight years to see the implementation of two simple suggestions such as those put forward by the hon. the Minister in order to save the lives of the mines to which I have referred? I cannot believe that if proper concentration, proper thought and proper application to the problems of these marginal mines had been applied in 1956 as it has been in the last two years, the situation on the Witwatersrand would not have been a totally different story. I want to say that, as far as the present Minister of Mines is concerned, I believe he has adopted a constructive, positive and dynamic approach to this problem because he has been made aware of what is at stake. I am, however, not prepared (and I think the country, as the years go by, will not be prepared), to say the same about the two former Ministers of Mines. I think they can be justifiably criticized for adopting a laisser-faire attitude and letting matters slide, resulting in the unsatisfactory situation on the Witwatersrand that we have to-day. If we have any cause for concern, I should like to refer to the concentrated mining methods that are now being applied particularly in the Free State and the Western Witwatersrand area. It was only 11 years ago that Saint Helena poured the first gold in the Free State. Since then the Free State gold mines have milled over 120,000,000 tons of ore, which incidentally is far more than was milled in the Witwatersrand in its first 25 years. We can thus realize the danger of the shortness of the lives in the Free State, the Western Witwatersrand and the Klerksdorp areas. I believe that we have to approach this whole matter in a more scientific, a more urgent and a more dramatic way than the present Government has done in the last 14 years. I associate myself with the hon. member for Germiston (District) in saying that some type of organization—call it a “Mining Development Corporation”—something similar to the Industrial Development Corporation—should be set up immediately in order to act as a liaison between the Department of Mines, the Geological Department, the Industrial Development Corporation, the Government Metallurgical Department and Commerce and Industries in order to co-ordinate the efforts of our mining activities. I know that the hon. the Minister will reply that there is a part-time liaison committee in existence at the moment, but the technical services and the information available from that organization are not sufficiently well known and are not being sufficiently used. I think that full-time personnel—a full-time organization—has to be brought into existence in order to co-ordinate all these efforts and bring a more positive approach to our problems. In that regard too, one must bear in mind the mining exploration development work, which is being done in the Bantu territories. It becomes all the more urgent that some type of organization of this nature must be set up in order to have a more co-ordinated approach to our problems. I am of the opinion that the time has now arrived for the hon. the Minister to tell this House, and the country, what the position is and what the likelihood is of any increase in the price of gold. The hon. the Minister has had opportunities recently of being overseas amongst people who are dealing with this matter, and I think it would be most informative if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us what the possibilities and the trends in world financial circles are in regard to any possible increase in the price of gold. At this stage I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give an indication of what is happening as far as the exploration for oil in the country is concerned. We have seen a statement in last night’s Press about a find of oil in the Dannhauser district. I think the people of South Africa would be most interested to know what the attitude of the Government, and the Minister is, as regards further oil activity and oil exploration in this country. Is the matter going to be handled by the Government, and are subsidies going to be made available? What is the method that the Government is adopting as far as the granting of concessions are concerned? What is the Government’s approach towards encouraging local interests to exploit and explore the possibilities of oil in this country? [Time limit.]

I do not want to talk to the Minister to-day about the claims of the mineworkers or about marginal mines. I think it is fitting to-day, 66 years after the State first started to devote its attention to the problem of occupational diseases, to say a few words in connection with the relationship between the State and the worker as far as occupational diseases are concerned. The State first started in 1911 to turn its attention to occupational diseases and tried to regulate the relationship which had come into existence between employee and employer as the result of occupational diseases. Industrial diseases such as pneumoconiosis are socio-economic problems in which the State has a direct interest. Ever since 1911 the Chamber of Mines, in its capacity as employer, has never been able to tackle this problem effectively. As the hon. the Minister stated last week as well as last year when the Pneumoconiosis Bill was introduced, the authority which took an active interest not only in the treatment and the prevention of pneumoconiosis as an occupational disease but also in the after-care of the mineworkers, was the State. As far as occupational diseases are concerned, the State has never thrown the mineworkers to the wolves, and the National Party in particular has never done so. The State has always endeavoured to place the control over occupational diseases on a sound footing. Sir, we have 332 controlled mines in the Republic of South Africa. The mining industry is a powerful organization. Thousands of mineworkers are employed in these 332 mines. There are tens of thousands of people dependent on these mines. They form a large section of our population, and the State has always adopted the attitude that these diseases must be viewed as a socio-economic problem to the community as a whole. We cannot help paying tribute on this occasion to the State which has always acted fairly and without discrimination towards citizens of ours who have become the victims of occupational diseases. In the eyes of the State the citizen is part of the community. He is not just an employee attached to a specific mine. The citizen is part of the community. I also want to pay tribute to the State because the State has always regarded occupational diseases as a national problem and not from the point of view of money or from the point of view of profits. The State has never hesitated to impose obligations upon employers where the interests of our citizens have been at stake as the result of accidents or where they have contracted an occupational disease. I just want to quote to the Committee what the Stratford Commission said in 1943 in connection with pneumoconiosis and in connection with the relationship between the State and the worker. The commission said—

The State has constantly guarded against any misuse of pneumoconiosis or other occupational disease as a bargaining factor or for the purposes of exploitation. It is the protection afforded by the State which has prevented the reduction of compensation for occupational diseases and therefore the victimization of employees in times of a surplus of labour. It is the State which has guarded against unfair demands by employers upon employees. It is the State which has ensured that it has not been possible for employers to use the question of pneumoconiosis compensation as a lever in wage negotiations. Our workers can never be grateful enough for this relationship which has developed historically between our employees and the State. A particular relationship has grown up here in South Africa between our workers and the State, and many of our workers in the mines are content because they know that the State is sympathetic towards them, and where there have been individuals or companies or other interests which have sought to make use of the weaker position of the worker, the State has intervened and prevented it. What about the dependants? There are thousands of dependants who have always shared in the benefits resulting from this relationship between the State, the employer and the employee, and those people will always be infinitely grateful to the State. Sir, I am not talking about the National Party only; I am talking about the State as such which throughout the years has taken an active interest in this matter. The State has prevented the misuse of a dangerous disease such as pneumoconiosis as a political football or as a bargaining factor in the relationship between the employer and the employee. That is why we have so much industrial peace and quiet in South Africa. This protective hand which the State extends over the interests of the worker, is also extended over the relationship between employer and employee. Sir, if anybody were to ask me to what I attribute the comparative peace and quiet in South Africa in the industrial sphere, to what I attribute the almost complete absence of strikes, I would say that basically it is attributable to this fine relationship which has been built up throughout the years between the State, the employer and the employee and to the sympathetic interest which the State has always shown in the relationship between the employer and the employee.

The previous speaker is always somewhat of an individualist, but I should like to get back to the gold-mining industry. The importance of this industry, as everybody who has spoken before me has said, cannot be over-emphasized. Gold is the one product we have which is always saleable, and it gives us more than 50 per cent of our foreign exchange. We are all very worried about the industry. We cannot do anything about the worked-out mines, but the marginal mines have large tonnages of ore and that is of concern to all of us. Last year the Government allocated an amount to assist them with their water troubles and this year we have had an additional amount to help the marginal mines, and in addition the Minister of Finance provided R15,000,000 reserve, part of which can be used for helping the marginal mines to keep going and to get the gold out. The value of the gold mines to the Witwatersrand is well known, but having said that, I want to say that there are a few factors relating to the industry which are not as well known. The University of the Witwatersrand Research Unit predicted in 1962 that of the 35 existing mines on the Rand eight will have closed down by the end of 1964, eight more will have closed down by the end of 1966, four more by 1968, five more by 1972, and nine more by 1982, and they reckon that the last will have closed down by 1987. Their predictions so far have not been proved very far wrong. The Springs mine has closed, Ellaton has closed, Brakpan has closed, and sundry small mines have closed. Simmer and Jack is closing and the C.M.R. is closing. Some of the others would have been closing down also, but this new assistance will help them. The Government at last, under great pressure from this side of the House, has decided to assist these marginal mines financially in order to keep them open, but they have been advised to do this for many years, and as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) has said, a great deal of blame can be laid at the door of the two previous Ministers of Mines. They paid no attention to this matter at all, and it is a most difficult thing to get a mine going again once it has closed down. Even when notice of closing is given, the staff disperses all over the place. These mines employ a large number of people. If you add to them the industries dependent on these mines, I say that the effect on the Reef will be catastrophic, and all the honeyed words of the Ministers that they will not permit Reef towns to become ghost towns will remain honeyed words. The Government is obviously very interested in this problem now, and it is now taking action, which is very belated indeed, but I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Springs. Government assistance to marginal mines would obviously lengthen the life of some of the mines, but they will still be worked out in a very few years, and the industry must start taking their place now in these areas. Sir, it is rather extraordinary that there is not a single Reef member on the Government side in the House at the moment. You see, Sir, the mining industry now seems to accept that increases in costs are unavoidable, and as the hon. the Minister of Finance told us last year, a rise of 25 cents in costs would mean a loss of 11,500,000 ounces of gold worth about R287,500,000. The hon. member for Springs gave the Committee other figures relating to the gold which is still underground. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister in his reply this afternoon airily stated that industries on the Reef had already to a large extent taken up the slack caused by the closing down of the mines. Sir, that statement is not correct. Let me tell the Minister that at Springs more than 50 per cent of the residents two years ago, according to a report, were directly or indirectly dependent on the mines in that area. Government officials in an attempt to minimize the difficulties point out that only one-third of the Native workers on the mines are South African Natives, the others being migrant labourers from Portuguese East Africa, the High Commission territories and so on. Sir, it is not a question of those labourers at all; what is at stake here is the future of the settled communities White and Black, in these areas. Not much time remains for action. The assistance granted by the Government to low-grade mines is a step in the right direction, but it is quite obvious that even this step will not keep the mines going for more than 6 or 7 years. You cannot go and look for more gold when there is no more gold left.

Sir, that is all I want to say about the gold mines. There is one other matter on which I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some information. I want to ask him to give us his views on our uranium production, which is at present worth about R110,000,000 to us annually. There is no doubt about it that the secrecy with which this subject has been shrouded is in the main now unnecessary; the Minister’s tongue is no longer tied. We had certain difficulties with the Auditor-General with regard to this matter, but every day one reads reports in the newspapers in connection with uranium production. We know that it has been published that in 1960 an agreement was negotiated with the United Kingdom for the deferment of deliveries of uranium oxide to Britain, and a further arrangement was made last year. This information all comes out in the mining reports and it is public knowledge. Will the hon. the Minister please tell us what the present arrangements are with Britain and when shipments under the original agreement to the U.S.A, will cease. As I have said, every day one sees Press reports to the effect that production is being cut down in Canada and the U.S.A. and, speaking from memory, other places, and there is no question that the public is worried as to whether the production of saleable uranium oxide is going to end soon or whether there is a future for the metal. If we are going to lose a product which is worth R100,000,000 a year to us it will be a very heavy loss. Our foreign exchange will be very seriously affected. The Minister must obviously have intimate facts governing this somewhat complicated matter and I hope he will see his way clear to clear the air a little bit for us, particularly in regard to the use of this product in our own country. There has been much talk in the past few years of giving the Western Cape its power through atomic energy on the ground that the Cape people feel that their coal is extremely expensive because it has to be transported over such long distances. This is obviously something which has to be dealt with at some stage in the future. I hope that it will not be dealt with in the dilatory manner in which the marginal mines were dealt with. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister or the Deputy Minister will not tell us whether they are considering the utilization of atomic power in our own country. Will they give us some indication as to what their plans are. There is no necessity whatever to be secretive any more. I hope that the hon. the Minister will heed my plea and give us this information.

I should like this afternoon, having regard to the future industrial development, to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a matter which is very important to the north-eastern Cape area. What I want to advocate here is a geological survey in the area between the Orange River scheme and the Transkei. I think I am correct in saying that this area can be regarded to-day as the key area. In the development which flows from the Orange River scheme the emphasis should perhaps be placed on the western areas as far as agricultural development is concerned, but I think as far as industrial development is concerned the emphasis should be placed on the eastern areas. The Free State University is at the moment making a survey of natural resources in the eastern area, but unfortunately the area of Griqualand-East is not included in that survey and I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister this afternoon to see that a proper geological survey is made there, not only a surface survey but also a depth survey, because if raw materials are discovered in that area it is going to give a tremendous economic fillip not only to the White areas but also to the Transkei and to the Herschell area, and at this stage it is extremely important that we give our attention to these matters because a prosperous White community and flourishing border industries will mean that both the Herschell area and the Transkei will be able to develop with very great success in the future.

In the short time left I want to make a few observations relating to the pneumoconiosis report for the year ended 31 March 1963. Paragraph 3 of this report is probably one of the most significant paragraphs we have had in reports relating to pneumoconiosis. Up to September 1962 it would appear that there were 1,609 people who were receiving a lump sum benefit. During the following six months another 767 qualified for a pension. This means that in a period of six months there were 767 miners who had gone through an examination and were found to be suffering from a stage of pneumoconiosis greater than they were up to September 1962. From 31 March 1963 to 31 October 1963 this figure had again jumped from 767 to 1,264. That is really very, very significant because it means that previous to the new examinations it was possible that a large number of miners who were suffering from pneumoconiosis were not certified. It seems strange that there should be such a rapid jump from September 1962 to October 1963. Of the original 1,609 we find that 345 miners were not receiving the pension that the others were receiving.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would not consider giving these 345 miners who only received the lump-sum payment the pension as well. It is quite obvious that they must be border-line cases. Judging from the figures that I have read to the Minister I feel sure that these 345 miners should be given the benefit of the doubt because in my mind there is a grave doubt as to the stage of pneumoconiosis they have reached. I now ask that these people should also be given the pension the others are receiving.

I want to go further. 267 miners were not certified at all as suffering from any stage of pneumoconiosis. By March 1963 these people were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis or both. On going through the figures again I find that eight of those people were actually suffering from tuberculosis. They were missed previously. That was March 1963. But by October of the same year the figure had jumped from 267 to 859 and 52 of those were found to be suffering from tuberculosis. What surprises me is that there should be three and a half times as many people found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis during this period and six and a half times as many people suffering from tuberculosis. This is a very, very serious position. I think the time has come for every single mineworker to undergo special tests to find out whether or not he is suffering from tuberculosis. I do not like this sudden rise in the number of mineworkers who are suffering from tuberculosis. How is the Minister going to tackle this problem?

I would suggest to him that every mineworker be tested preferably by means of a skin test—either a patch test or by injection. This will entail a great deal of work but, as I have said previously, the panel doctors must be asked to co-operate. I am certain that the panel doctors will co-operate in trying to detect tuberculosis in the mineworkers. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he issues the necessary equipment to the panel doctors and issues an instruction to the mine managers that each and every mineworker on their mine must, within a certain space of time, visit his panel doctor and be tested for the possible presence of tuberculosis. This is very important in view of what the hon. Minister has just asked us to pass in this House. He has asked us to allow those people who are cured of tuberculosis to go back to the mines. Let us at this stage tackle the question of tuberculosis which is not found by the ordinary normal examination. These people must be examined now so that the tuberculosis will not be discovered only when it is too late. It is tragic that a man should be allowed to work underground and not receive a pension at all because he has not been found to be suffering from any pneumoconiosis but is suddenly found to be suffering from what used to be the fourth stage of pneumoconiosis, without going through any of the other stages; that is, he will be suffering from pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis. It is a very serious position. The Minister must take note of these figures appearing in this report.

I am sorry I cannot go into this in greater detail with the Minister. I want to bring another matter to the notice of the hon. Minister. I am perturbed about the question of residences in the areas of asbestos mines. I cannot ascertain whether or not there is any regulation which sets out how far a residence may be built or how near people may live to an asbestos mine or to an asbestos working. The Minister knows how dangerous asbestos dust is. He knows it is a very potent cause of cancer of the lungs. He knows it attacks not only those people who are working in the mine but those people who are working with the asbestos and it can attack those people in close proximity to the mine. He must immediately, if he has not done so yet, institute some regulation whereby the siting of residences must be in an area which is considered safe. It is possible that new asbestos mines may be opened shortly. With the opening of those mines it will be necessary to provide married quarters and I want to ask him to have those residences built not nearer than five miles from the workings. Those residences which are already in existence should not be used by the families of asbestos workers and new residences should be built, if possible, for these people. It is quite reckless to allow these people to live in the vicinity of an asbestos mine. I know every precaution is taken as far as the dust is concerned. I know what the mine owners are expected to do at the moment. But even so no precaution is taken to protect those people living in the area.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.