Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to inform hon. members what the business of the House will be next week. On Monday we will take the Third Reading of the Bill which is being dealt with to-day and which is being handled by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. Then we will proceed with the Votes until Wednesday; on Wednesday the House will deal with the motion for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means; on Friday we will deal with item 2, items 9 and 10 and possibly item 5 on to-day’s Order Paper, and thereafter we will continue with the Votes again.

I move—

As it reads at present, the definition of “Coloured person” is confusing. It may be construed as referring only to the Cape Coloured group. Old-age pensions are also paid to all the other Coloured groups, and to ensure that the Bill will cover the other Coloured groups as well, it is proposed that the definition be amended so as to include the Griqua, Malay and other Coloured groups. “Other Coloured groups” shall be taken to refer to those groups which cannot be classified into a fixed ethnic group, or to certain inland Coloured groups who are not Cape Coloureds. I may just say that this definition has been discussed with the Department of the Interior and with the law advisers, and that they feel that it will be the best definition to cover all groups.

There are two points in this clause on which I would like to have some elucidation from the hon. the Minister. The first one concerns the definition of a debilitated person. This clause provides that “debilitated person” means a white person, a Coloured person, an Indian, a Chinese or a Bantu who is 60 years of age or older and, by reason of old age or a physical or mental defect or illness, unable to care properly for his person or his interests, but does not require constant care by a medical practitioner or a qualified nurse. The important point is that this definition only makes provision for persons who are 60 years of age or older. A person may be classified as a debilitated person, but in terms of this definition, unless he is 60 years of age or older, he will not enjoy the protection and the privileges which are provided for in subsequent clauses. Sir, when we look at the draft Bill which was published as an annexure to the report of the Working Group on legislation for the protection of the aged, we find that there is no definition of a debilitated person as such. Instead of defining a debilitated person, the draft Bill classifies such a person as an infirm person, who is defined as follows—

In terms of the definition the Minister proposes in this clause, he restricts “debilitated persons” to those persons who are 60 years of age or older. I believe that there may very well be cases where people suffering from a physical or mental defect are under 60 years of age, and I feel that they should not be excluded under this definition. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why the definition has been drafted in this particular form and why the definition which is proposed in the draft Bill published by the Working Group was not incorporated in the Bill.

Then I should like to have further information from the hon. the Minister in regard to the definition of “home for the aged”. Paragraph (viii) provides—

Sir, I would like to have further information from the Minister in regard to the meaning of the word “mainly” in this particular definition. It would appear that there is to be no restriction with regard to the number of persons in such a place which may be required to register as a home for the aged. We know from experience that the various welfare organizations who care for aged persons, invariably use certain private homes to accommodate them where accommodation is not available in an institution or where it is felt that they would be better provided for in a private home where they can receive individual attention. I do not think the hon. the Minister wishes to include all such places in his definition of “home for the aged”, and I am surprised therefore that no reference is made in the definition to any particular number of persons. I understand that the proposed legislation suggested that five or more people should be accommodated in such a residence before it would be necessary for it to be registered as a home for the aged. As I have said, “home for the aged” is defined as any institution or other place of residence maintained mainly for the accommodation of aged persons. I am wondering whether it would not be better to state the minimum number of persons who should be accommodated in such a residence before it becomes necessary for it to comply with the various provisions of this Bill. We would like to have some further information from the hon. the Minister in regard to these two points.

I support the plea of the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to the inclusion of persons under 60 years of age in the definition of “debilitated persons”. There is a changing feeling in this country to-day in regard to the care of our old and feeble people. In this respect we have lagged behind some of the older countries of Europe, but in the last year or two especially under the new Minister and particularly with the development of sociology as a course of study at the universities and with the recognition of social work as a profession, the whole attitude towards welfare work is changing more and more.

Order! This clause only deals with definitions.

Yes, but I want to advance a reason why the definition of “debilitated person” should not exclude persons under 60 years of age. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should bring more flexibility into the work of his Department. Those of us who come into contact with welfare workers find that the Departmental workers are tied to figures and to rules, and the introduction of the age factor is seriously going to handicap the health services that will be given to these people. I hope, Sir, that you will not stop me from speaking on this point. I rather look upon it as social work that I am trying to do and I feel that a flexible mind should be brought to bear upon it.

Is there not another clause which deals more directly with it?

I do not think so, Sir. If a man or woman is 59 years and 364 days old, then according to the Department he suddenly, on the next day, becomes a debilitated person. In spite of the fact that he is unable to care for himself, he is not regarded as a “debilitated person” in terms of this definition, but the moment he turns 60 he falls within the definition of a “debilitated person”. In my personal experience the welfare workers of the Department and the amateur social welfare workers are good, compassionate people anxious to help, but the Minister’s Department is tied down too rigidly by rules and regulations. Of course, I realize that the Department must have rules and regulations, but I want to ask the Minister to go very thoroughly into the question as to whether he cannot give some of his professional workers, especially since they are now university-trained people, and his senior officials, more latitude than they have to-day. That is the spirit in which I would like the hon. the Minister to approach this question, and I would like him to show his good faith by deleting the words “who is 60 years of age or older” from this definition of “debilitated person”.

I would like to support the views of the hon. member for Umbilo. Anybody who has had anything to do with provincial hospital work knows that the people who present the greatest problem are the aged chronic sick. The definition of “debilitated person” in the Bill refers to people who by reason of old age or a physical or mental defect or illness, are unable to care properly for themselves or their interests but do not require constant care by a medical practitioner or a qualified nurse. I want to point out that the provinces do not cater for this type of case. There is no provision made by the provinces for the aged sick who require constant medical care and qualified nursing attention, and this Bill makes no provision for them either.

Order! That is the very reason why the hon. member should not discuss it here.

Sir, I am dealing with this clause.

The hon. member is now dealing with something for which he says no provision is made in this Bill.

I am dealing with the definition of “debilitated person”, and I want to point out to the Committee that if this definition is going to be adopted, it is going to create an anomaly in that no provision will be made for the very people for whom I think provision should be made.

Order! The hon. member should have raised that point during the Second Reading Debate. He now wants to extend the scope of the Bill.

On a point of order, Sir, when I was discussing this matter in the Second Reading Debate Mr. Speaker ruled that I should discuss it in the Committee Stage.

Order! The scope of a Bill cannot be extended in the Committee Stage.

All I am asking for is that provision should be made for the aged sick who require constant medical care and this Bill does not provide for them.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

On a point of order, clause 1 (vi) contains a definition of a “debilitated person”. The hon. member is asking for a more generous definition so as to include persons under 60 years of age, and he is putting his arguments to the Minister. I suggest, Sir, that that is not out of order.

That would be extending the scope of the Bill. The hon. member stated distinctly that he wanted provision to be made for people who are not covered by this definition. Perhaps the hon. member should wait to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about it.

Three matters have been raised here with which I should like to deal. The first question is how it is determined when an institution is a home for the aged, because the definition does not provide how many inmates there must be in an institution before it qualifies for registration. In the original Bill the figure “five" was included, but on the advice of the law advisers and after serious consideration it was deleted, because we have many hotels and boarding houses in the country which accommodate aged persons in larger numbers than five, and if all of these were now to be registered, it could have the effect that those good institutions, such as hotels and recognized boarding houses which provide for quite a few aged persons, would perhaps no longer be prepared to accommodate those people, and for that reason we decided to define “home for the aged” as it is defined in paragraph (viii), i.e. as a place maintained mainly for the accommodation of aged persons. In course of time, as we gain more experience. we shall see whether any loopholes arise and then we shall try to close up those loopholes by way of regulations and if necessary by way of an amendment to the Act. I hope the hon. member will appreciate that we feared that we would deter a large number of institutions which accommodate a very large number of aged persons if we stipulated a particular figure in this Bill.

Then there was reference to the definition of “debilitated persons”. Let me first deal with the last part of the definition, to which the hon. member for Salt River referred, namely persons who do not require constant care by a medical practitioner or a qualified nurse. Such persons are excluded from the definition of a “debilitated person”, and the reason why they are excluded is that a person who requires constant care by a medical practitioner or a qualified nurse should be hospitalized, and that is the task of the provincial administrations. If there is a deficiency in this respect, it lies with the provincial authorities. If a person needs constant care—and “constant” means regularly, daily—one cannot admit such a chronically ill person to a home for the aged because such a person cannot receive the necessary treatment in such homes, and it is therefore something which should be left to the hospital authorities. One cannot include it in this legislation. It is in fact being done at present. Aged persons who are chronically ill are hospitalized.

The other question referred to by the hon. members for Umbilo and Durban (Central) is the restriction of 60 years in respect of a debilitated person. If one removed the restriction of 60 years in respect of a debilitated person, there would be all justification for also arguing that the restriction of 60 years should be removed in respect of an aged person as well, because some people are old at 50 years and others at 70 years. But one has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise it becomes quite impossible to handle it administratively. As regards debilitated persons, I would agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that there is actually a gap in our legislation between the care of children who are indigent or in need of care, on the one hand, and debilitated aged persons, on the other hand. The disabled persons group comes in between. Disabled persons are dealt with under other legislation. The Disability Grants Act is an example. What the hon. member actually wants is that it should also be possible for us to admit to a home for debilitated aged persons a disabled person, a person who is not so mentally disturbed that he has to be admitted to a mental disease institution and not so chronically ill that he has to be hospitalized, but who is so infirm and disabled that he cannot take care of himself, instead of leaving such persons out in the cold. There is a great deal to be said for his views, and I am very sympathetic to them. In fact, my Department is already admitting such persons and caring for them on an ad hoc basis in the institutions which come under the control of the Department at present, the three different institutions. In the meanwhile we are therefore helping those persons where actual cases of the necessity for that occur. But I think it would be wrong to extend the scope of this legislation, which relates to aged persons, in order to include other persons as well. In the Department we are therefore already engaged in a comprehensive inquiry into the care of debilitated and indigent children who cannot be left at large in society but who require care as a result of chronic illness or chronic disability, as well as other persons who are younger than the prescribed age but who come under this definition. An inquiry is being carried out into the treatment of such persons, and it may be that in the rear future we shall introduce an amendment to the Disability Grants Act to provide for that as we are now providing for the aged in legislation, in order that we may make the necessary provision in some other legislation for disabled persons who are not covered by the Children’s Act or by the Aged Persons Act; because this is not the only problem one encounters as far as they are concerned. There are other problems as well. I hope the hon. member will agree that we should now leave this legislation unchanged while we are still engaged in the inquiry, and that we should deal with that problem on a later occasion.

I want to suggest to the Minister that he takes out the “60” now and puts it back later when he has provided for those others. It seems to be unwise and unsympathetic to leave these others for whom he is going to provide suspended in mid-air instead of taking them in now and taking them out later.

Order! I think the hon. member is out of order.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

This clause deals with the establishment and maintenance of homes for the aged by the Government and also with the payment of subsidies. Here I would like further information in regard to the subsection which deals with the subsidies being paid to the managers of registered homes for the aged, clubs and service centres for aged persons and welfare organizations providing welfare services to the aged and debilitated persons. My query is in regard to the payment of the subsidy to the managers of registered homes for the aged, clubs and service centres. The position is that many of these clubs and service centres particularly are administered by management committees of welfare organizations and I would like to know from the Minister the reasons why the subsidies are paid to the managers of these places. The managers change from time to time and clause 1 defines a “manager” as the person exercising control over such home. It appears to me that the subsidies should be paid to the management committees and not to the managers, particularly in regard to the clubs and service centres. I would therefore be pleased if the Minister would give some further information as to why the subsidies are paid to the managers.

I think if the hon. member looks at the definitions clause, he will see that “manager” is defined there. It is impossible, when paying out subsidies, to deal with committees or management committees. There must be a responsible person appointed by the management committee, and they are usually well qualified people. The Department must be satisfied that a qualified person is in control of such a home. Therefore it is impossible to pay it out to the management committee, which very often consists of laymen. We must have a responsible person, and of course he will then be responsible to his management committee. I think the hon. member will agree that it is necessary to have it this way.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

As far as clause 4 is concerned, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider including inspection by a qualified nurse in the inspection carried out at these homes for the aged by social welfare officers. For various reasons it is essential that the aged persons who are cared for in these institutions should be kept physically and mentally active as long as possible, and for that reason it is essential that the slightest need of medical and other services should be diagnosed at an early stage. I want to suggest for the Minister’s consideration that a nurse who accompanies this officer would be able to spot those needs at an early stage.

On behalf of the hon. member for Berea, I move—

(2) A social welfare officer exercising any power under subsection (1), shall, at the request of the manager of the home for the aged in question, produce a certificate issued by the Secretary and stating that he is such an officer.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when an inspection is carried out, such officer will have the necessary authority and will be able to produce such written authority so as to obviate difficulties which could arise should the manager of such a home for the aged challenge that person’s authority to carry out the inspection. We know that in terms of other legislation like the Air Pollution Act an amendment was accepted by the hon. the Minister of Health on those lines where inspections have to take place. It is felt that this is a reasonable amendment and one which could obviate difficulties which might arise in regard to inspections.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo on behalf of the hon. member for Berea is quite acceptable to me, and I shall accept it accordingly. I think it is an improvement to the Bill.

With regard to the hon. member for Springs and his request in connection with nurses, he will notice that clause 4 provides that if a social welfare officer deems it necessary, he may take a medical practitioner with him. The services of district surgeons or of the district nurses are frequently enlisted. There is therefore adequate provision in the Bill to have medical inspection of such premises. It is general practice that when a welfare officer performs work of this nature and the assistance of a medical officer or a nurse is needed, it is enlisted. We have provided here that a medical practitioner may also be taken in extreme cases, just to provide for the right of entry to a house. Normally they would take a nurse with them, and if there is any objection from the persons at the institution which is to be inspected, a medical practitioner would be fetched, who in terms of the legislation may in fact enter such premises. Then one would have the best and most expert advice, better than that of a nurse. I think the hon. member will agree that that is adequate.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

I move—

The reason for this is that as the Bill reads at present, it is possible for any person to make a written statement under oath to a public prosecutor and as a result initiate a certain procedure, and I do not think this is advisable. After serious consideration, I felt that this might open the door even to malicious persons to make continual visits to any place where aged persons are accommodated. There could be a whole group of persons who set themselves the task of going around and visiting these places and who would then be constantly lodging complaints and applications of this nature. I therefore felt that it is better that the application should be made by the social welfare officer. If members of the public discover that there are abuses, they may report them to the Department of Social Welfare and the welfare officers will then carry out the inspection and take the necessary further action.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

This is an important clause which gives the reasons whereby a person might be entitled to claim an old-age pension, and it also relaxes the residential qualifications, whereby a person can now qualify for a pension if he is a South African citizen and is resident in the Republic, which is an improvement on the previous Act. However, it is possible that this concession could lead to a certain amount of abuse, and evidently that is the reason why paragraph (5) restricts the continuation of the payment of the pension to a period not exceeding six months, with a certain proviso. It is on this point that I wish to obtain further information from the hon. the Minister. I think for the first time this provision is made whereby there is this restriction that the pension will not be paid for a period exceeding six months. It can be seen that due to the relaxation of the residential qualification as outlined in the first portion of the clause, there might be cases where a person would qualify for a pension and then leave South Africa and continue to receive that pension for an indefinite period. We mentioned in the second reading that we were in favour of the relaxation of the residential qualification, but that we would like to probe this question further in the Committee Stage. The restriction to six months is understandable. We realize that certain circumstances might arise which make it necessary to discontinue payment of the pension after six months. However, the proviso further restricts the Secretary in his statutory right to extend the period and to continue the payment of the pension beyond six months. It merely states that the Secretary may do so under such conditions as he may determine, but at the same time it says that such persons must have resided in the Republic or the Territory of South West Africa for not less than 15 out of the 20 years immediately preceding the date of his last departure from the Republic. This might lead to certain practical difficulties.

There are certain pensioners who have sometimes found it necessary to go and live with relatives outside the borders of the Republic in one of the neighbouring states. In the past the Department has been sympathetic in this regard and has continued to pay the pension to the recipients. However, with the restriction that the Secretary is unable to permit the continuation of that pension in view of the fact that the pensioner might not have been resident in the Republic for 15 out of the 20 years, it means that there is a further restriction. I will be glad if the Minister can give an indication as to why he believes this proviso in this form is necessary. As I said, certain practical difficulties might arise resulting in a person being deprived of his pension, although the Secretary might think that there are sufficient grounds for continuing to pay the pension to that person if he finds it necessary to live outside the borders of the Republic, but will be unable to do so because of this proviso. It is interesting to look at the draft submitted by the working group on this legislation. They made a recommendation which is included in this clause, but they did not suggest such a restriction. On page 14 of their report they merely state that it is recommended that a pension be stopped after six months, but that it should be in the discretion of the Secretary to continue paying the pension according to circumstances. There has been a departure from that recommendation, bringing about this additional restriction. I would be pleased if the Minister could indicate the reasons why he wishes this additional restriction on the Secretary’s discretion in regard to the continuation of the payment of the pension. I might mention that we on this side are not in favour of people continuing to receive pensions indefinitely, but it does appear that the provisions of this clause restrict the Secretary’s discretion too much.

The hon. member must bear in mind that we are now relaxing the conditions for granting pensions considerably, particularly as regards immigrants. As soon as they become South African citizens and obtain citizenship, they qualify for a pension. For that reason one should guard against the danger of granting them a pension and then finding that they spend only brief periods of a year in South Africa, just to keep their pensions. For that reason a restrictive clause must be included here. I do not think the hon. member need have any fears for cases of the type to which he referred here, namely persons who may have relatives in neighbouring territories. The 15 years out of a period of 20 years is not continuous. Such a person must have been a resident here for 15 of the last 20 years; his domicilium must have been here. During that period he could have gone on visits, even for fairly lengthy periods. I do not believe it will prejudice the cases he mentioned here. Then, of course, the Secretary retains the right to exercise his discretion in other cases. But if the hon. member could give me specific instances of people who may be prejudiced as a result of this, I shall consider them and perhaps put the matter right in the Other Place, but according to the information I have at present, the danger which he foresees does not exist.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

There is only one small point here on which the hon. Minister may perhaps give an explanation. It is in paragraph (4). The rest of the clause appears to have been taken over from the Old Age pensions Act, but paragraph (4) extends the delegation as far as the Treasury is concerned in connection with over-payments. It now states that the Treasury or any person authorized thereto by the Treasury may at his discretion write off the whole or any portion repayable in terms of this section. This question of the over-payment causes a great deal of concern. Persons who receive a pension sometimes for a considerable time then find that they have to refund it, and that invariably causes hardship. But the point I wish to raise with the Minister is the reason for the further delegation of power as far as the Treasury is concerned in connection with the recovery or the writing-off of these over-payments.

At the moment there are delegated powers from Treasury to the Department of Social Welfare to exercise discretion within certain limits, to an amount of R500. I think the hon. member will appreciate that if one had to approach Treasury for every amount of less than R500 it would cause a great deal of delay and extra work. I think we should retain that delegation to a certain amount, as in the past.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

Although this clause is also one which has been taken over from the Old Age Pensions Act, the question of an appeal to the Minister is related to a decision by the Secretary. If one refers to the clause which deals with the regulations, there is to be a time limit, evidently, in which a person can appeal against a decision by the Secretary. That is clause 20, which deals with the regulations. My question to the Minister is whether there is any time limit in regard to an appeal to the Minister. There might be a certain decision taken by the Secretary, and if that person has not appealed against that decision …

Order! That issue should be raised under clause 20.

I was only comparing the appeals. There is a time limit in regard to an appeal against the decision of the Secretary, and this clause provides for an appeal to the Minister against that decision by the Secretary, so that the two are directly linked with each other.

It should be discussed under clause 20.

I only want to ask whether there is any time limit in respect of an appeal to the Minister. I will leave it at that. I would like the Minister to give an assurance, if possible, that such appeals are not subject to any time limit and that a person may appeal to the Minister at any time after the decision is taken by the Secretary.

Clause 13 merely lays down the principle that there may be an appeal to the Minister, but the particulars of the circumstances under which the appeal may take place, will be provided in terms of the regulations to be promulgated under clause 20. The question raised by the hon. member is relevant to clause 20.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 23:

I move the following amendment to the short title of the Bill—

At present it is called the Aged Persons Protection Act. I have received representations from the National Welfare Council to the effect that the word “protection” should be deleted, because the aged would not like to feel that they are being protected, and I think there is a good deal to be said for that. I think this Act actually goes much further than merely to protect the aged. It deals with all the interests of the aged. I think it would therefore be much better if we called it the Aged Persons Act.

We on this side of the House support the Minister’s amendment. We believe that the Bill is more comprehensive than merely a protection Bill, and therefore we support the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 1,200 laws, ordinances and other measures which have the force of law and which were passed before Union in 1910 by the legislative authorities of the territories constituting the Republic at present. From the nature of the case, most of these measures are available in English or Dutch only. In addition to that the number of publications in which these measures are contained, are extremely limited, with the result that the legal practitioner does not readily have access to them.

Ever since 1928 attempts have been made to revise laws and to make them available in both official languages as far as practicable. However, for various reasons progress could not be made with this work. As a result of that the Government decided:

1. (a) that such statutory provisions as had in the meantime become obsolete, should be repealed;
2. (b) that those which still serve a useful purpose and may usefully be incorporated into existing legislation, should be so incorporated; and
3. (c) that the rest should be adapted to present requirements and be re-enacted.

Since that time a number of those statutory provisions have already been incorporated with existing laws or adapted to present requirements and re-enacted. However, a large number of them no longer serve any useful purpose and may therefore be repealed. You will also notice that in the Bill which is before the hon. House at present, we propose to repeal approximately 660 of them.

The necessity for the survival of the rest is still being investigated. According to circumstances they will be repealed, incorporated with other legislation or re-enacted. It is hoped that it will be possible to dispose of the work involved in doing that within the next few years.

Although the measures that are now being repealed have served their purpose and are now on their way to oblivion, as is the case with all other things that become obsolete, it is not without a certain measure of nostalgia that one says goodbye to them. In their day they paved the way for a nation that was yet to come, and even to-day in their ripe old age they still reflect the history of this country as it was written by our ancestors in word and in deed when they tamed the virgin wilderness for the civilization you and I enjoy at present. Unobtrusively but unmistakably they tell the story of pioneers whom Providence brought together here on South African soil from many countries, to grow and to develop into one virile people and nation that were to become the beacon-light in a continent which had for centuries been bypassed by the march of civilization.

And they speak to us from a remote past. Just look at Sir John Cradock’s Proclamation February 5th, 1813, on civil imprisonment for debt, or at Proclamation December 31st, 1824, promulgated by Lord Charles Somerset who is known to all of us and who even as long ago as that set great store by the medicinal properties of the buchu plant. Or to come somewhat nearer to our own times, just look at the statutory provisions of the Transvaal dating back to the year 1881, when the massive figure of Paul Kruger had already assumed political leadership in the Transvaal. In this way we can continue, with the aid of these old laws we are about to remove from the Statute Book, to call to mind one historical figure after the other out of bygone days.

In paging through the old volumes and pausing here and there for a while, it is interesting to glance at what the legislator decreed for his people a century or more ago. A Government Notice dating back to the year 1860 announced that Pretoria had been designated as the seat of government with effect from 1st May, 1860. A little further, round about the year 1870, one reads that the Transvaal Volksraad had accepted the award made by Governor Keate of Natal whereby the border between the Transvaal and the Orange Free State had been defined. The year 1873 is the year of the break-through to higher education in this country, and the University of the Cape of Good Hope was founded and four or five decades later it became the well-known University of South Africa. As we further we see that only a year later the railway links between such well-known places as Worcester and Beaufort West. East London and King William’s Town, Bellville and Cape Town. and Zwartkop’s River via Uitenhage to Graaff-Reinet, were given statutory recognition. As far back as 1882 a racecourse appeared on the scene and the South African Jockey Club. which has survived in the South African Turf Club, was given statutory recognition. In Natal in 1898 the foundations were laid for establishing a link between Natal and England by means of a submarine cable, and in 1909 the former Colony of Natal held a referendum on the question of whether or not it should be a party to unification.

And did you know that duels, the so-called duels which are so popular in literature on life at the Cape in the days of the Dutch-East India Company, also received attention in Transvaal legislation a century ago? And I wonder how many of us are aware of the fact that telephone services in the centre of Durban are even to-day still being provided by the City Council of Durban in terms of legislation that dates back to the year 1897 …

And now you want to take that away from us.

No. The hon. member is making a mistake. Or that the area which is commonly known as Mossel Bay, was originally known as the District of Aliwal? Yes, each of these old measures tells its own story and is a piece in the jig-saw puzzle of the history of our country and its people, and it is easy to wander off along these old roads when one picks up a volume of these old laws.

But I am afraid that we shall be obliged to leave them to the historian, because time does not stand still and we must go on with the task that awaits us. Nor do I believe that we ought to differ with one another on the necessity for repealing these old provisions, and that no matter how reluctant we are to sever ties with the past, we are all agreed that we should once again clear our Statute Book of provisions that have served their purpose and are no longer necessary at present.

However, before I resume my seat, I should like to keep a promise I gave to the respective provincial administrations. As you have probably noticed, this Bill repeals certain statutory provisions in respect of which the provincial administrations have legislative power. These laws could therefore just as well have been repealed by the administrations in question, but for considerations of practicability and convenience and with the concurrence of the administrations in question, it was decided that the repeal of those laws would be undertaken by Parliament. However, I have undertaken to put it beyond all doubt on this occasion, as I am doing at present, that the repeal by Parliament of the statutory provisions under discussion does not in the least curtail the legislative powers of the provincial administrations or affect them in any way.

For the sake of information I may just mention here that every Department or administration that is concerned with the statutory provisions which are being repealed in terms of this Bill, itself accepts the responsibility for the repeal of the provisions in question and that my Department, except as regards the laws in which it is concerned, merely serves as a channel through which the repeal of these obsolete provisions may take place.

Mr. Speaker, with that I think that I have said enough, and I move.

I am pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say that he has consulted the provinces so far as the repeal of these laws are concerned, which they have the power to repeal, of course, concurrently with this Parliament. It did seem to me that certain of the laws—for instance, the old laws in terms of which you had to write your name and address on your wagon—are matters which fell within the purview of the provinces. One wonders whether, perhaps, some of the other laws should not have been dealt with on the same basis. In any event, I was very interested to see a most extraordinary provision in Law No. 17 of 1880 of Natal. I am sure no one appreciated that this was in fact so. That law laid down that no person shall appear in any of the following villages: Newcastle, Dundee, Ladysmith, Colenso, Weenen, Estcourt, Weston, Howick, Richmond, Ixopo, Harding, Umzinzinto, Pine own,—the hon. member for Pinetown will be surprised to hear this—Verulam, Victoria—which would include Durban—William’s Town, Stanger, Blackburn, Greytown, New Hanover and other places, nor within 50 yards of a roadside inn “without being clothed with some garment or garments extending from the neck to the knee”!

The mini-skirt.

They must have seen it coming.

One wonders why this is now being repealed! In any event, everybody concerned would have been surprised to learn that they were not allowed to wear a mini-skirt. The repeal of this, of course, may imply that a topless dress could or may now be worn but that I think is being forestalled by clause 2 (a) of the Minister’s Bill providing that the repeal of this law shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect.

The Minister has indicated that under clause 2 of this Bill rights of persons which have accrued under any of these laws now being repeated are to be protected. This clause repeats, ipsissima verba, the Interpretation Act. However, while this seems to us to protect vested rights or rights that have been incurred, it obviously does not protect those rights still to be incurred or which might still accrue in future—for example, to a vet unborn person. So I hone the Minister will give attention to the possibility of amending clause 2 (c) so as to make provision for the protection of rights still to be incurred or which night accrue in future. You see, Sir, one of the difficulties is that we do not have a White Paper. The Minister has assured us that all these laws have been renewed—necessarily repeated. But nevertheless it is our function as Opposition to examine every piece of legislation laid before us and the effect thereof as thoroughly as we can. It has been very difficult in the short time during which we have had this Bill to look at all the old Acts and ordinances mentioned in the schedule of this Bill. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister indicated that there were thousands of them. However, we could look at a number of them. At those applicable to Natal, for instance, I did have a look—at least most of them. But the question one asks oneself when one sees that a law has been repealed is whether the matter which is being repealed has been provided for in other legislation, or not. But this is what this Bill does not tell us, i.e. what law has made provision for it. So we hope it may be possible that this could still be done—at least in respect of those more important matters. We also hope that we will have more time before the next stage of this Bill is taken to have a look at the various Acts which are here being repealed. Up to now it has been very difficult to do so.

As the Minister has indicated, the laws which appear in the Schedule show a fascinating panorama of South African history. In Natal one sees a number of indemnity Acts, and Acts relating to states of martial law, all reflecting the great difficulties and troubles that the people of Natal had to suffer over these years with the mighty military Zulu nation and. for example, the rebellion of Langelebelele before they were finally broken, and white civilization in South Africa was allowed finally to develop in the whole of this country.

When I looked at these laws I decided that life is not really that much different to-day from what it was then. When one looks at Natal of those days one finds that they had rifle associations, the laws which created them are here being repealed. To-day we have our skietkommandos. In those days they had trouble with immigrants. They were settling them. They wanted immigrants and they were getting them in. They settled them on land. They had Norwegians and all sorts of people. And for all those who ever claim that they are responsible for influx control. Law 4 of 1855. here being repealed, provides for the control of the influx of the “kaffirs” into the urban areas.

Of course, they were more advanced in some other ways. For instance, they were prepared to have the very latest in communications in those days. One sees the Natal Ocean Cable Law of 1878 provided a direct telegraphic link between the Colony and Great Britain. One is delighted that some persons extant to-day, but not extant then, were not the Minister in charge at the time, because this latest innovation would no doubt have been regarded as something which might corrupt one’s morals and undermine the nation at the time. As the Minister said, there was a telephone service provided for in Durban so long ago. and although it is being repealed here, it does not affect our telephones. Our telephone service in Durban unfortunately is going to be taken over by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

We also had the remarkable situation that in 1875 they provided for the Indian immigrants to be banded into a battalion of infantry in the army of those days. Such were the circumstances in which the white settlers of Natal found themselves.

Now, there are some laws which puzzle one as to why they are being repealed, and in what respect provision is made elsewhere. There is Act No. 37 of 1908 (Natal) which provides that no person may pass a white child under the age of ten into the charge of a non-white person to be maintained by such person apart from his parents. Why is this being repealed? Is there a similar provision in our legislation relating to children? I do not seem to recall it being in the Children’s Act.

Then there is another law, one relating to interest as far as Natives are concerned. It is a most interesting law, because it dealt with important aspects so far as contracts with Natives were concerned. I am referring here to Law 41 of 1908, a measure “To regulate claims against Natives for interest.”

Is that a Natal law?

Yes, all the laws I have quoted are Natal laws. The statute provides that the contract must be in writing in the first place; the amount of interest must be separately and clearly stated, and, furthermore, it provides for the document to be executed in certain respects. Now, as far as I am aware this does not appear anywhere else. It does seem to me to be a very important Act and a very commendable idea that this should be done. In fact, it was only the other day that the hon. member for Durban (Central) was pleading for this very provision, in relation to white people. He was talking about a measure to deal with companies which charge interest in various transactions and he asked for precisely the same provisions to be applied. The hon. the Minister who was in charge at that time did not indicate, as far as I can remember, that there was a provision in the law to that effect.

And so, Sir, all these matters are far from clear even now, and we hope that the Minister will be able to give us at a later stage perhaps some indication as to what laws presently provide for the provisions of the laws being here repealed. Perhaps he will also give us sufficient time before he proceeds with this measure in order that we may examine the matters which I have mentioned, which, as I say. were taken at random just from the laws of Natal.

We will support the second reading of this Bill. This is obviously not the stage at which to go into detail.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a measure of nostalgia that one supports this legislation. I went through this schedule personally, and among these laws there are some about which I feel sorry that they are being repealed. I am sure that hon. members on the other side also feel sorry about the repeal of some of these measures.

I want to quote one or two examples. Here I see Ordinance No. 4 of 1845. I think that any royalist on the other side will feel sorry about the repeal of this measure. According to the title of this measure it was an Ordinance for “declaring certain Guano to be the property of Her Majesty the Queen”. I assume that since Republic that commodity has probably become her personal possession, and that hon. members who were not eager to have this piece of legislation repealed, will be very sorry about that.

She has a vested right of protection under clause 2. Do not worry about the Queen—look after yourself.

Then we have Act No. 42 of 1887, about the repeal of which one can also feel sorry. The subject matter of that Act was, “To Prohibit the Supply of Intoxicating Liquor to Her Majesty’s Ships and Vessels without proper consent.” From now on “Her Majesty’s sailors” will probably be able to obtain intoxicating liquor freely here at the Cape!

Then there is Act No. 21 of 1890, the “Rabbit Act”. Now, one does not know whether that Act sought to protect rabbits or whether it sought to exterminate them. Nevertheless, that Act is probably no longer necessary to-day. A measure about the repeal of which I myself feel sorry, is the one announced in a Government Notice dated 26th April, 1860 (Transvaal). This Notice provides that Pretoria shall be the seat of Government. I do not doubt that quite a number of hon. members feel pleased about the repeal of this measure, but I personally feel sorry about that.

A measure about which hon. members on the other side may feel sorry, is a Transvaal law announced in a Government Notice dated 23rd July, 1863, namely the “Prohibition of duels”. I can imagine that there are many people in this country who would like to fight a duel now that this law is being repealed.

Then there is a very interesting law. one that could only come from Natal, namely Act No. 2 of 1869—“To confine the use of Postage Stamps to the purposes of Postage.” I do not know what the Natalians did with a postage stamp in those days so as to have necessitated the launching of such a measure through the Legislative Assembly! But, as I have said, in my humble submission such a law can only come from Natal.

If one glances through this schedule, there are many of these laws which, as the hon. the Minister rightly said, reflect the history of South Africa, and it is therefore with a measure of melancholy that we finally have to say goodbye to these old laws on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition for the way in which they accept this measure—with such misgivings as they do have. I just want to reply to a few requests and remarks that were made by the hon. member for Durban (North).

In the first instance he asked whether it was not possible to insert a provision protecting future rights, or whether I would not consider doing so. My reply to that is, “No, I cannot do so.” The position is in fact that these laws have become obsolete. We protect all rights that were obtained in terms of them. But because they have become obsolete, we presume that there will be no future rights. That is why we are repealing them. Therefore I am unfortunately unable to accommodate the hon. member in this respect.

As regards the hon. member’s remark concerning a White Paper, the hon. member will appreciate that we have, I think, 664 laws here. If my Department had to issue a White Paper explaining why each of these measures is being repealed, it would probably have been a volume four or five times as thick as this measure. However, that is not the main reason for such a White Paper not being issued. The main reason is as I explained it in my Second Reading speech. Each administration and each Department itself accepts the responsibility for the accuracy of the repeal of these laws. The Department of Justice merely serves as a channel.

With what laws are we dealing at present? We are dealing with three types of laws. The first is those laws which have become quite obsolete. The second is those laws that may possibly be adapted. The third is those measures that are to be re-enacted. What have we done? We asked the various Departments to furnish us with a list of those laws which have—in their opinion—become quite obsolete, of those laws which they feel ought to be adapted, and of those laws which have to be re-enacted. Those bodies themselves did the work. The task of my Department was merely to ensure that what hey asked for was embodied in this Bill.

Since the entire discussion this morning was mainly about Natal, I want to tell the hon. member what happened in respect of Natal. From the Natal Provincial Administration we received the following letter, dated 21st December, 1966—

In other words, what has happened now is the following: The Natal Executive Committee considered all these measures which are printed here, and they deemed it fit that they should be repealed. All the questions the hon. member is putting to me, he should actually put to the Natal Provincial Administration.

No.

They deemed it fit that this should be done. I gave them the undertaking that I was repealing these measures for them purely as a result of considerations of practicability. I am giving them the further undertaking, as I also said in my Second Reading speech, that it does not affect the power of that Province to pass legislation in these particular spheres in the future.

I must admit that I admire the diligence with which hon. members have been examining these old measures. The hon. member referred to clothing. I just want to add that I, too, looked at that for a while, and the hon. member forgot to say what the penalty was. The penalty for an offence in terms of the Clothing Act was £1 or three days. That was the penalty for such an offence. I did not have the opportunity to examine all these old laws, nor do I intend doing so.

In conclusion I just want to say this. I want to tell the hon. House that my departmental officials are at its disposal, and if. between now and when the Committee Stage is taken, hon. members experience the least bit of difficulty in regard to a particular measure, then the doors of my Department are open to them. I hope that they will obtain there all the necessary assistance to which they are entitled. With these few words I now move the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee adjourned last night, I was pointing out how the Opposition blows hot and cold as far as the desirability of this Department of Sport and Recreation is concerned. The Opposition have been forced to their knees for the very reason that they say one thing and do another. If they go on in this way, they will come to grief, and then we shall have good reason to inscribe the following words on their tombstone: “Here lies the United Party—it indicated a right turn, and turned left.’’

I want to say to-day that it is not possible for one of the functions of this Department— one that is just as important as sport, namely recreation—to be given the priority it deserves. It simply remains a fact that the amount requested here for this new Department, is a very modest one. When I refer here to recreation, what I mean by that is not recreation on the sports fields of South Africa. I am now dealing with recreation for the family, for the aged, for children and for those who do not participate in organized sport. I mean informal activities in the open air, activities that afford the opportunity to develop the body, to ensure endurance and tenacity and to counter the softening that is to be found amongst us, just as amongst the members of any other industrialized community. In our modern society nearly 86 per cent of our Whites live in our cities and inhale polluted city air every day. Mechanical aids have restricted the freedom of movement we need physically and at present there is a crying need for physical recreation. Freedom of movement in nature is of inestimable value for preserving our health and restoring the balance that is being disturbed by our artificial way of life. That is why advance planning and the provision of adequate and suitable facilities for recreation are imperative. By doing that we can ensure that those who come after us in greater numbers, may enjoy healthy and constructive recreation. Dr. Max Lerner states this need very strikingly in the following words—

In all countries this is a matter which ranks very highly amongst such services as are provided by central and local authorities. Our Government also realizes fully the importance of this matter. As early as 1961 an interdepartmental committee was appointed for the planning and extension of facilities for public recreation. At present this committee falls under the new Department of Sport and Recreation. In the meantime the provinces have accepted a very clear responsibility as far as the development of open spaces is concerned. Very valuable services have therefore already been provided by the provinces themselves. The roles played by the Departments of Forestry, Water Affairs and Planning have already begun to take definite shape. For that reason I think that it is necessary for this committee to operate once again at full steam so that effect may be given to the recommendations contained in the committee’s report of 1963. These ten recommendations deal, inter alia, with co-ordination, overlapping, uniformity and assistance.

To my mind the Department of Sport and Recreation has the power, without additional departmental machinery having to be established, to give attention to this matter. Therefore I also want to emphasize that the training of leaders in the sphere of recreation, just as in the case of sport, ought to receive immediate attention. To those people who adopt a sceptic attitude to this matter, who claim that owing to the extensiveness of South Africa’s surface area advance planning in respect of recreation is unnecessary, I just want to mention the following: Much to their dismay they realized recently in America that their open spaces had been utilized injudiciously and had in certain cases been spoilt permanently. Industrial complexes, which could as easily have developed elsewhere, had been placed in the most beautiful surroundings. In addition private persons and speculators were allowed to contribute to the so-called ribbon development of coastlines and the banks of rivers and lakes, thus blocking entirely the access to these areas. At present these countries have to buy up these areas once again at very great expense. One can understand this happening in countries such as Holland and Belgium, but few people are aware of the fact that the U.S.A. spends billions of rands on that every year. As far as South Africa is concerned, I can only tell you that we are rapidly heading in the same downhill direction. As far back as 1957, Mr. Rudolf Opperman—who assisted so ably in pleading our Olympic case in Tehran—wrote a brochure entitled “Our Vanishing Heritage”, in which he pointed out very clearly how desperate the situation in South Africa had already become.

I am pleading for advanced planning as far as this matter is concerned. Proper attention should be given to the necessary planning. Systematic development is of the greatest importance to the State, just as it is to any other organization. We have already had experience of how very valuable the Department of Planning has, in its relatively short existence, been to our country. This Department will also be represented in the inter-departmental committee for recreation to which I referred. This Department will undoubtedly be involved in every step that is taken. I regard planning for our recreational needs as a step which will save our country money and assist in preserving our vanishing heritage, not only in the distant future, but also in the immediate future.

Mr. Chairman, I am not too sure that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is correct when he referred to the powers of the hon. the Minister’s Department regarding recreational facilities, etc., and their being over and above those of a local authority. But I certainly agree with the sentiments that the hon. member has expressed I think that it is noticeable that in our large cities like Johannesburg, for instance, there is a terrific shortage really of large, open spaces within easy reach of people dwelling in flat-land. I refer particularly to an area like Hillbrow. I do not know whether the Minister has this power or not, whether he can influence local authorities, or whether he can discuss with other Cabinet members for instance the acquisition of an area like the Johannesburg Fort for the provision of a recreational and open-air centre for the people living in the highly-congested flat area of Hillbrow. This is one of the last huge open “lungs” that could possibly be used for the population of Johannesburg, and something certainly ought to be done about acquiring that for this purpose. If one looks at England or America, one finds in the latter country that large area known as Central Park, a piece of ground which must be the most valuable land in the world to-day. It is an enormous area comprising hundreds of acres set aside right in the very heart of Manhattan for the use of the citizens of that great urban complex. Equally, in London there is the vast park area of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, as well as other areas. which must be tremendously valuable, and which are set aside. I feel that Johannesburg has not taken sufficient note of its growth and the future requirements of its population. If the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is correct, then I hope that the Minister will look into this matter.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister, and that is whether it is possible for his department to examine the possibility of developing ski resorts in South Africa. Now. this might sound a bit absurd in a country which has a short winter season and which has a tremendous amount of summer spotting facilities. But, Sir, skiing has become an enormously popular sport in recent years, and I think that the Minister’s other department. namely the Department of Tourism, will bear me out when I say that we have hundreds of South Africans to-day leaving South Africa for winter sporting in Europe during our summer months. I understand from skiing enthusiasts that there is a possibility for the development of a ski resort for instance in an area like Mont-aux-Sources, where there are good slopes in the shade, that is on the southern slopes. Obviously, in order to maintain a good snow skiing area, one requires constant snowfalls and the temperatures must below. Possibly the manufacture of snow, as is done in America at many of the ski resorts when the snow is not adequate, could also be undertaken. This is fairly expensive, but it might turn out to be a good commercial proposition because of the growing number of skiing enthusiasts in South Africa. I think Harrismith would probably be the nearest point from which this area could be reached. Already the roads are pretty good. Mont-aux-Sources is a good national park and a good holiday resort as it is. I do not know how much additional expense would be required, but possibly this is a matter which could be investigated together with private enterprise, which might be interested in setting up such a resort. The Government would probably have to be responsible for some of the basic equipment, such as the provision of ski lifts, and so on. into the upper regions of the mountain. I think we should not let the years go by without at least investigating this possibility, because with our wonderful mountain areas such as Mont-aux-Sources and with the growing number of skiing enthusiasts, this might be something which the hon. the Minister’s Department could launch in the not too distant future when we do not have to worry so much about inflation and additional Government expenditure. In the meantime there is no reason why investigations could not be set afoot to determine whether or not the setting up of such resorts would be an economic possibility.

I must admit that the atmosphere which has prevailed this morning amongst the hon. members on the opposite side has been a refreshing one, and the hon. member for Houghton also added a lively sparkle to it. Mr. Chairman, in the days when I was still interested in these things, I was also able to use fine words like that; that only goes to show that we do not grow any older.

When discussing the activities of this Department, I think there are various considerations which must be taken into account. I should just like to mention a few in passing. When the late Dr. Verwoerd established this Department on 1st July, 1966, his aim was that this Department should promote sport and recreation in South Africa so as to ensure the survival of our nation as a physically as well as spiritually strong nation. There was of course a great need for something like this to be established and not only the establishment but also the actual injunction was very necessary. History has shown us time and again that a nation which becomes enervated also of necessity becomes physically and spiritually defenceless. There is a second consideration, too, which one must take into account when discussing the activities of this Department, i.e. that when we discuss snort and recreation or the relationships applying to these tonics, then we are actually dealing with a very delicate matter. These are things which we must handle very carefully, and that is why I find it so pleasant this morning that such a good spirit is prevailing in connection with the discussion of this entire matter. But there is also a third matter which one must take into consideration, and that is that South Africa is already acknowledged on a national and international plane as a sport country. That proves to what a great extent sport has already assumed a major and important place in the life of every South African. But there is also a fourth and important consideration, which is that South Africa has also become an industrial country, a country where the clock inexorably determines the course of our lives, to such an extent that if one adds to this the modern form of existence which we have, we can honestly say that we have an ideal breeding place here for an enervated nation. That brings me to the last consideration which I also want to mention and that is that we are dealing here with a young Department, in fact the youngest Department, in the Public Service, which has only a small appropriation of funds. But when we discuss the affairs of this Department against the background of all these things, we can say at once that the hon. the Minister, his secretary and his staff, have already in the initial years laid down thorough, practical guiding lines for this Department and has done so because they began with the essential elements of the structure of sport in South Africa. In other words, they began with the key figures in the structure of sport in South Africa. The following question immediately presents itself: Who are the key figures of our sport machine here in South Africa? In my opinion we can divide these people into two groups: In the first place the group of people who one can describe as coaches, those people who voluntarily give their free time to instruction in sport and teaching their fellow-countrymen the great satisfaction one can derive from sport. The second group is the sport administrators, those people who control the sports clubs and the sports associations. and who have to see to it that funds are available and who have to take the lead in all the activities of their various clubs. These two groups of people actually live and work on the inspiration which they derive daily from the knowledge that they are serving a very great task. They do not receive much recognition or appreciation for their work. If it were not for the inspiration which they derive from the knowledge that they are cultivating good bonds of friendship, of comradeship, the knowledge that they are serving a great task, then we would not have them in such great numbers; and that is why the youth and the sportsmen of South Africa can speak with so much appreciation of this Department, because this Department has in the initial years and in the first place given attention to this important group of persons. I should like to qualify that statement further by just mentioning what the Department has done in this connection. In this connection then I want to mention two examples: In this way it has been made possible for the South African Gymnastic Union to introduce 17 separate courses for the training of coaches. It has also been made possible for them to invite a Swedish gymnastic expert to South Africa, so that he can convey his expert knowledge to our coaches. That is one example where this group of people to whom I have referred are being specifically served. I want to mention another example. Take for example the South African Women’s Hockey League. It has been made possible for this League to establish national coaching courses for officers, coaches and referees. So, Mr. Chairman, I can mention numerous examples of where our amateur sports coaches and administrators are being helped by this Department. This Department has gained an insight into the fundamental problems of our sporting machine and is trying to solve those problems. But I do not think that we in South Africa can with a clear conscience state that the South African approach to sport is always the correct one. Too often our sport is regarded as an ideal in itself, and sport may never be regarded as an ideal in itself, but only as a means to the achievement of an ideal. In this regard I would like to refer to the use of Britain as an example. If we consider rugby, for instance, then we can say that a large percentage of the cream of the British youth participate in rugby, but they participate in rugby in order to become fit, they do not become fit in the first instance in order to play rugby, and that is a laudable approach. As soon as we make an ideal of sport in itself, then we attach too much importance to sport itself. Sport in South Africa must remain what it was intended for, as an aid to the realization of a major ideal. If we are able to cultivate this approach —and I believe that in the years which lie ahead this Department will make a valuable contribution in this regard—we will be able to carry out the injunction of our unforgettable founder to the letter.

In his speech the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet asked us on this side of the House to explain our attitude in regard to the new Department of Sport. I should like to say that in the course of my speech I will furnish the hon. member with that reply.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of the important role which sport and recreation are playing to-day in the daily life of all civilized nations we find that most of the Western countries have found it necessary to establish special State Departments for sport, and this has given rise to the fact that considerable sums of money, which run into millions, in the case of the larger countries, are being voted each year for the subsidization of national sport and recreational organizations which promote sporting activities in those various countries, and that is why we do not find it at all strange that South Africa, with its famous sport tradition also displays this world tendency which is proved by the fact that the Government has decided to establish a separate Department of Sport in South Africa. We should like to make it very clear that any objections or reservations coming from this side of the House in regard to the establishment of a separate Department of Sport were expressed merely as an opinion on our part and were based merely on the question of the inappropriate time and financial condition of our country. However, I can assure the hon. the Minister that there has never been any actual objection to the principle of the establishment of a separate Department of Sport in South Africa, and I should like to add that while we, in the role of the Opposition party, of course reserve the right to criticize this new portfolio if we think that it ought to be criticized I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that anything which his Department may do to promote sport and recreation in this country will enjoy the full support of this side of the House.

If we consider the Vote, we find that the amount of money which has been appropriated in favour of the new Department of Sport only amounts to R250,000. We realize that if this amount is deducted from the amount which is necessary to maintain the new Department then there remains only an amount of R136,000 which the hon. the Minister can use to afford financial support to the many sport and recreational organizations in South Africa. I want to add that if one compares the small amount of money which is being voted for this Department with what is being voted by other countries it becomes very apparent that this new Department of Sport and Recreation is indeed being launched on a very moderate scale. That is why 7 think that until such time as the financial situation of the country justifies a larger amount of money being allocated to the Department in question the hon. the Minister ought to give very serious attention to the question of whether the greatest share of the available money should not be allocated to existing sport organizations in order to improve their coaching facilities. I am advocating this procedure because there is no doubt that the most urgent need in sport in South Africa to-day is a high standard of coaching. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister, who was himself an outstanding sportsman, will agree with me that the pre-requisite for a higher standard in any field of sport is good coaching. I think that the hon. the Minister will also agree that despite South Africa’s famous record in competitive sports, our coaching methods have become obsolescent and that we are not keeping pace with the newer scientific methods of coaching which other countries have been applying for some considerable time. It is quite interesting to read what Mr. Gert Potgieter, the well-known Olympic athlete, has said in regard to the question of sport coaching. I quote (translation)—

The quoted statement by Mr. Potgieter to the effect that there is a very great need for the establishment of a national sport training centre tallies of course with the proposal made by Dr. Danie Craven a few weeks ago to the effect that two sport training centres ought to be established, i.e. one in Cape Town and one in Johannesburg. In view of the fact that I have had the privilege of visiting a number of similar sport training centres abroad, I should like to emphasize that it is essential that at least one such sport institute should be established in South Africa. If we want to remain on a competitive footing with the rest of the world as far as sport is concerned, and also as far as recreational training is concerned, we shall have to give this matter very serious consideration.

It will of course be a very expensive undertaking to establish a modern sport training centre. It will entail a capital investment of more or less R5 million. Nevertheless I think that it would be beneficial to the country as a whole and incurring the expenditure for this purpose would be to the benefit of all. In addition it is my honest opinion that the money for the undertaking should be obtained with the assistance of a collection list and that the hon. the Minister should take the lead in this respect through his Department. The Department of Sport should convene a meeting of delegates from the Central Government, the provinces, local authorities, trade and industry, mining and the S.A. Federation for Sport, with the purpose of collecting funds to make this scheme possible. I am convinced that it will be possible for the new Department of Sport to make a fundamental contribution to increasing the standard of sport in South Africa if it would help to promote the establishment of such a centre. For this reason I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give this proposal of mine his honest and serious attention.

I rise at this stage not because I do not want to answer all the points raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), but because I felt that I should put certain records straight which he tried to clarify in his speech. The hon. member said that in principle the United Party was even last year in favour of having a Department of Sport; the only objection they had was that it was untimely, and the economic position of the country was such that it did not merit it, but in principle they believed that we should have a Department of Sport. The hon. member does not have to look very far if he wants to check up on this great principle of his party. I want to read what the hon. member for Wynberg said immediately after this Department was established. It was not a principle that she approved of. Just listen to what the hon. member said. Not only that. Sir, but she went into my constituency to say it. After all, I thought there was a certain amount of honour even amongst thieves, but to go into my constituency and say these things was shocking! This is what the hon. member said. She reminded the audience at Hermanus “that the Nazis also had a Minister of Sport”! Let the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) tell us whether this is in accordance with his attitude. The hon. member for Wynberg also added—

Sir, I want to know whether this sounds as if “we in the United Party are in favour in principle of having a Department of Sport”, or whether it indicated that the Department of Sport was a Nazi ideal. Then this attitude goes further. It was also only last year in this House that another member of the United Party, the hon. member for Karoo, a member of the United Party caucus, got up when I attacked the hon. member for Wynberg, and said—

A whole atmosphere of suspicion and distrust was created to condemn this Department of Sport. I see the hon. member for Constantia is here. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said it was only the financial aspect that the United Party was opposed to. But of course that is not so. The hon. member for Constantia, right at the first opportunity he got in the financial debate, as a front-bencher, spoke about the Minister of Finance calling for economies, and he said it was downright wrong on the part of the Prime Minister at that juncture to come along and create a new and quite unnecessary Department. The hon. member did not say it was not opportune; he said it was an unnecessary Department. So it is no good the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) doing a back-somersault. The hon. member for Constantia went even further in his condemnation of this Department. He spoke about the lack of patriotism of the Prime Minister and then he said this—

That was the language which came from those hon. members, and that was the attitude of the Opposition to what was a positive move by the Government. We know that over the years the Opposition has condemned whatever this Government has tried to do. It has either been Nazism or Fascism. I also listened with some surprise to the hon. member for Von Brandis. He did not talk about the paltry R150,000 voted for this Department last year, as compared with a Budget of R1,000 million—a terrible extravagance, according to the hon. member for Constantia. But now in the new Estimates the amount is increased to R250,000, and he complains that it is only a token amount. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says it is almost a ridiculous amount for the facilities that are envisaged. But if last year it was an extravagance and it was not justified, how can hon. members say this year that they feel more money should be voted for sport? [Interjection.] Last year they said the country could not afford R150,000. but this year the country can afford to pay more for it. Sir, let us be quite frank. The United Party is in the process of trying to change their image. They found out that there were a million sportsmen and women in South Africa who took a very poor view of the attitude they originally adopted in regard to this Department. This change has come about only for that reason. Sir, I have my suspicions. I remember reading about this new research, the motivation in depth, which the United Party has undertaken. Their image was so bad that their friends who financed them were getting tired of suffering defeat after defeat, although it was called a moral victory by the United Party, and so they insisted that they should have a research in depth, and those researchers obviously said to them: “But you people must be out of your minds. Your image is bad because you oppose everything. A Department of Sport is being established and you oppose it; you call it Nazism;-you must stop this nonsense, because you cannot call everybody Nazis.” I do not imagine that all this new approach is just spontaneous. This new attitude is because they have been psychoanalysed. Now they say it is their policy to have a Department of Sport, according to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I think any day now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to say: “It was our policy to have a Republic and to get out of the Commonwealth.” This is the new image they are puting over. I understand the manoeuvre, but the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) must not try to pull the wool over my eyes. He must not tell me that last year they supported the Department of Sport in principle, and therefore this year it is really their policy but only the Government is not voting enough money for it. Sir, I wanted to reply to that point because I wanted to get the true facts on record. I want to say to the hon. member for Constantia that if he will get up and say to me that his criticism was unjustified, and if the hon. member for Wynberg will also get up and say that she was wrong to go on to a public platform to talk about a Nazi Department, and if the hon. member for Karoo will also say that he regrets what he said. I will never raise this issue again. But if they do not, then they must know that they are going to get this reaction from me [Interjections.] There is the man who needs the most psychoanalysis—the hon. member for Yeoville. I have known that hon. member for many years and every time he was the one who condemned whatever the Government did. Every time they lost an election he said it was a moral victory for the United Party.

But apart from this changed attitude there have been many other constructive points of criticism. To these I should like to reply later. I have made detailed notes of them all. I have made a note of the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis on the other points that I have not mentioned and also of the other points raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I know South Africans are sport loving people. Therefore I was sorry indeed that originally there should have been a discordant note when this Department was established. I intend going on with the work this year. I shall formulate, for the benefit of the hon. member for Von Brandis and others, the basis on which we consider grants should be made and the basis of the guiding lines we adopt. I should like to discuss all these questions. I should like to hear critical comment on them. But I do not want to hear the type of nonsense the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) put over to try to justify the change of image which their American consultant advised them to make.

One of the most important formative influences in our modern society is undoubtedly the grouping of people, something which is in any case a completely natural kind of action. When relating this to our youth we can accept that the groups to which they belong can play a very important role in the formation of positive attitudes amongst those young people.

That brings me to the need to make facilities available, facilities which will promote the formation of groups which have a direct purpose, preferably voluntary groups. Positive formation is more effective when groups are formed voluntarily. It is particularly amongst our school-leaving youth that a particular need exists for facilities which will enable them to group themselves together. My plea to-day must be seen against this background. When I plead for the making available of permanent facilities at central points throughout the country, places where it will be possible to group our young people together on a regional basis for participation in various types of sport and for recreation, as well as for the training of leaders, then I realize that a very strong consideration presents itself, particularly in these times in which we are living. This is the availability of funds with which to finance the establishment of such facilities. Now I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he is prepared to accept the principle of what I am pleading for, then he should make use of private capital to a large extent. With that, of course, I do not mean that the control of those undertakings should be taken out of the hands of the Department, because we have seen during the past year in what a positive way the Department approaches and carries out its task. I am merely advocating that the capital should be drawn from private sources. The facilities which are made available in this way can then be leased to the Department on a long-term basis.

But there is another matter which I should also like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is the coaching and training of people in the art of karate. It is probably not necessary for me to tell you, Sir, that this is a very dangerous type of sport, and therefore I must be careful about what I am going to say now because I am the last person who would want to fall victim to those people. But I have reason to believe that the coaching and training of people in this specific sport is taking place in a rather uncontrolled manner at the moment. Non-Whites are also receiving training in this sport on a relatively large scale. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he cannot have the entire question of karate investigated intensively during the recess, particularly in the light of the participation in that sport of non-Whites.

The hon. the Minister has amazed me by making the same speech to-day as the one he made a few months ago, during the last session—precisely the same. On that occasion too, just as he did to-day, he recounted the whole story of the speech which the hon. member for Wynberg was alleged to have made and all that she was alleged to have said in regard to the creation of this Department. It is strange, particularly strange since the hon. the Minister thanked me personally for the contribution which I made during the discussion of this Vote last year. Other members were also thanked by the hon. the Minister on that occasion for their contributions. But he has come along to-day and attempted to rake up the past.

I find it strange that the Minister has done so. Why has he done so? It seems to me the reason is to be found in the fact that he is not afforded enough opportunity to talk politics. Apparently he does not have opportunity enough to state his case—that is why, on occasions such as this, he wants to show hon. members on this side that Frankie Waring still knows something about politics and is unworthy of occupying the inferior position he has to fill. That is why he alleged that the United Party was supposedly changing its image after having called in an American consultant for that purpose. But where does the hon. the Minster get that from? Apparently he believes the story that appeared in the Dagbreek and in Die Vaderland, but did the hon. the Minister make any attempt to find some proof of this? On behalf of this side of the House I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is absolutely untrue that the United Party has ever made use of the services of any other person to instruct it in regard to what its image and policy in the South African politics ought to be. It would be better for the hon. the Minister if he checked the stories which he hears, stories which appear from time to time in his own Press. What are the true facts in regard to the creation of this Department? If there is one hon. member in this House who can say that we have for the past nine years already been advocating that more attention should be given to sport and recreation, then it is myself. I have done so repeatedly during discussions of the Vote of the Department of Education. We must not forget that falling under the National Advisory Council for Adult Education there is a section for physical training, a section which has done a great deal to promote sport and recreation.

A few years ago I had a private motion on the Order Paper requesting the Government to plan the first fitness conference in South Africa. In fact, on one occasion I even went so far as to say that we predicted that it could be possible for a Department of Sport and Recreation to develop out of the physical training section. Where does the hon. the Minister get his information from when he states that the United Party has suddenly realized now that there are thousands of sportsmen in the country who are convinced that we have adopted the wrong course? If there were opportunities in the past for bringing up the need for the promotion of sport and recreation then it was hon. members on this side of the House who availed themselves of those opportunities. In fact, we repeatedly requested the Government to make more money available through the physical training section for the promotion of sport and recreation. How can the hon. the Minister say now that we have never had any feelings for our sportsmen? The argument raised by the hon. the Minister is quite unfair. Last year there was co-operation in this House into matters concerning this Department. We had an objective discussion on this matter, as we have up to now done in this debate as well. Does the hon. the Minister want us to continue in this vein?

Just as you did last year.

If there is one person on whose shoulders the responsibility for keeping sport out of politics rests, then it is this hon. Minister. I want to say that we are prepared not to drag sport into politics, that we should like to see this Department of Sport and Recreation grow and we should like to see it mean a lot to our young people. We hope that the hon. the Minister will adopt the same attitude in future.

I should just like to return to the points which we made last year in respect of the purpose of this Department. I think the hon. the Minister was quite right in saying, through his Secretary, that his Department did not want to interfere in any way but that they wanted to give guidance and advice as far as sport and recreation was concerned. We accept that principle, that philosophy, but the time has come now for us to discuss again the question of what the purpose of this Department ought to be. I think that, if there is one particular purpose which can be achieved, then it is most certainly in regard to the publicizing of sport and recreation. Hon. members will say that it is not necessary to publicize sport and recreation in this country.

I want to maintain that it is. When there is a test match, whether cricket or rugby, and one sees South Africans in their thousands, people abroad have the impression that we in South Africa are a nation tremendously active in sport. In reality that is not so, because we enjoy watching sport, but most of our young girls and boys are not participating in sport at school with the result that in later years they do not participate sufficiently in snort either. I want to mention the facts to you. In 1954 a survey was made in regard to extramural participation in sport in 18 Cape schools. The following figures indicate a very interesting picture. In the case of the boys it was found that only 33 per cent participated throughout the year in summer and winter sports. We so easily think that there is 100 per cent participation. But in reality it was only 33 per cent of the boys.

Was that extramurally?

But when must they participate in sport? Certainly not during the periods.

I am only asking.

Yes, of course, that is when they play Saturday matches or have to practise during the week. In the case of girls of school-going age, only 25 per cent in those 18 schools participated in extramural sport throughout the year. If one were to apply that percentage on the children after they have left school then I am almost certain that the percentage would not increase. On the contrary I am inclined to think that that percentage, under the modern circumstances, would even decrease. That is why I say that the most important purpose of the Department of Sport and Recreation is to bring home to the nation the value of sport and recreation. How can that be done?

By television.

Yes, that is perhaps a very good method. The Department of Sport and Recreation has a Secretary who is one of the best trained physical culturalists in South Africa to-day. [Time expired.]

I cannot understand the hon. member for Newton Park’s argument very well. If I heard him correctly then it seems to me that, whatever is said here or may be said in future in regard to sport, the national sport of South Africa will still continue to be politics. Hon. members on that side of the House are participating freely in that sport, in this debate as well. They practised this type of sport last year, i.e. this political sport aimed at the Government. But when the hon. the Minister hits back and also participates in that sport, then they complain. I want to express the hope that hon. members of the Opposition will learn their lesson from what has been discussed here to-day and realize that if they want to play games, we will not allow them a free hand. We will also hit back in that game. We are of course very grateful to learn that the hon. members of the Opposition have changed their front in respect of this Department. Let me say for the benefit of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) who is not present in this House at the moment that I was glad to listen to the words which he uttered here this afternoon. He is a sportsman. That is why we asked last year why they had to make remarks like that. I mentioned the name of the hon. member for Newton Park and asked why he did not rather try and sound the keynote. The hon. member referred here to pleas which he had made in the past in respect of sport and physical fitness. Both of us have pleaded for that kind of thing in the past. Both of us raised pleas under the Education, Arts and Science Vote. That is why we found the attitude adopted by the hon. members for Constantia and Wynberg incomprehensible and unexplainable. But I am now saying that we are very grateful and that I accept the bona fides of the hon. member for Newton Park. I take it that he is sincere in his intention and that the same applies to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), but they must not take it amiss of us when we do not allow them a free hand in participating in the national sport of South Africa in this debate. We shall requite them a little for their sins. If I may be allowed to say something more in this vein then I just want to tell the hon. members of the Opposition that this is the sort of situation in which one finds oneself if one recklessly criticizes the Government for the mere sake of criticizing. In regard to the question of Government expenditure the hon. member for Constantia made a sizeable point and based his attack on criticism of a small sum of money. This year we are being informed by their side that it is still not enough. That is the kind of difficulty one finds oneself in if one makes injudicious statements and is asked to motivate them and then scratches about in the Estimates to find such things as the small amount of money which was voted last year for this Department. I believe that we have now reached the stage where we all accept the need for the establishment of this Department and that in future we shall, as has also been done in the past, look after the best interests and further the participation in sport and recreation by the population of South Africa. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) stated, and quite rightly so, that he did not see this matter in that light. He said that they—in any case I take it that it was he—do not regard it in any way strange that such a Department should have been established. Nor is it strange. If one considers what is being done in other West European countries, countries which like us have been developing into industrial countries where the rural character and the opportunities and amenities for natural recreation are gradually diminishing and disappearing, then we find that in Switzerland for example there is an institute for the promotion of sport.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee adjourned for lunch I was saying that in other West European countries which have developed into industrial countries and where the rural character of those countries have gradually disappeared, it is a general phenomenon that attention is being given to the furthering of sport and recreation, particularly in this respect that in such countries sport centres are being developed where provision is being made for the training of sports instructors and where attention is being given to promising young sportsmen and women, as well as to the training of people in the administration of sport. We have the example in Switzerland of the sport centre Magglingen, there is Finland with its Vierumäki, and Sweden with its Bosöu. In Britain there are no less than three, namely Crystal Palace, Lilies Hall and Bisham Abbey; and France has its Joinville. That is why one feels that the time has come when we in South Africa should also do something in this regard and pay more attention to the promotion of good recreation and sport. Now that we have been given our own Department of Sport, the time has come when we should also be given sport centres of this nature.

To-day I want to pay tribute to the attempts of the Federation for Youth and Sport, for proposing in due course to establish two training centres of this nature in the northern part of the country as well as one in the southern part of the country. I want to express the hope that the Department of Sport, this young Department which has already done meritorious work in respect of the promotion of coaching courses and the training of instructors and sports administrators will make it one of its major tasks to support this attempt. I do not want to elaborate further on the need for the fathering of sport and recreation. I just want to express the hope that what will count most for us will in future not be sport for its own sake but for the sake of the welfare of our people and particularly our youth, and in order to keep our youth off the streets and away from undesirable places where they do not receive any healthy training and recreation.

Our purpose is to organize and make use of them in a beneficial way, not only in respect of sport as such, but also for the purpose of building the characters of our youth and making them useful citizens of this country so as to enable them to be an advertisement for and a credit to our country in international sport, when we are afforded the opportunity of doing so. I want to express my thanks to the Department of Sport for the creation of a very fine decoration for achievements in the field of sport, i.e. the President medal. We want to express the hope that the award of this very fine decoration will be an encouragement for our youth to distinguish themselves in the field of sport. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can make a further announcement in this regard this afternoon. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to deal with the political side of the Vote. I should like to say that it is a great pity that when we discuss sport, politics should inevitably find its way into the debate. This is most unfortunate, because if there is one aspect of our life in this country where politics should not play a part, it is sport. I intend to talk about the Coloured people in relation to this Vote. Before dealing with that aspect, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister for the interest which he has displayed in regard to the blind bowlers in South Africa. As we know, there was a South African tournament held in Cape Town about a month ago for blind bowlers. It is very pleasing to note that the hon. the Minister was able to watch play and to assist these unfortunate people in a sport which has brought happiness to so many of them. I am very glad indeed and I feel that we should congratulate and thank the hon. the Minister for the part that he has played in that regard.

I have listened very carefully to what hon. members have said about sport. It is, however, quite clear that all their attention has been paid to sport which relates to the white community of South Africa. The hon. member for Sellenbosch said that sport is something which builds up the youth physically and mentally and makes better citizens of them, but I would suggest, with emphasis, that that applies equally to the Coloured people. What upsets me about the whole question in regard to the Coloured people is the fact that we are unable in South Africa to make use of the sportsmen in the Coloured community of South Africa and that they have to look to other fields within which to display their capabilities. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that it is right that a man like Papwa, the brilliant Indian golfer who has brought honours to South Africa when he has gone overseas, because he cannot to a great extent play in South Africa, has to depend upon friends and sponsors to make it possible for him to go overseas in order to play in competitions there. Unfortunately he is denied in effect the opportunity of playing in South Africa because he cannot play on white courses. The hon. the Minister said last year, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this, that when it comes to the Coloureds, he is not going to build golf courses for them.

Not only the Coloureds, but everybody.

The Minister did say last year, and I have his speech here in Hansard. that he would leave it to the Department of Coloured Affairs, which is correct and I accept the position. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether any money has been voted for this purpose? I want the hon. the Minister to take the initiative. There are no golf courses in South Africa where Coloured people can play for recreation or play professional golf or even to help as a professional those Coloured people who show promise in the golfing world. We have soccer fields, rugby fields and cricket fields. I understand that.

There is a golf course for Coloureds in your constituency.

I must say, quite frankly, that I do not know anything about the Athlone area. Are they playing there already? [Interjections.] I must apologize. I must say that I heard some time ago that golf was played here. [Interjections.] Even if it is so, it is the only course and I think it should be extended to other provinces.

Let me come back to something quite serious. I have been told of two outstanding tennis players—Coloured men—who have reached the top rank in South Africa. They are the two best tennis players in the Western Province and indeed in South Africa, I think. Whenever there is a tournament, they are the two people who play in the finals. It has been so for years. They want to go overseas, I understand, but they do not have the money. These men, Samaai and Brown, are brilliant tennis players. They are up against this difficulty. They want to go overseas to learn more and to play people of a higher standard than they can find in South Africa, and then they want to come back. They want to come back and train Coloured people in the game of tennis. Will the hon. the Minister help those two men financially to go overseas to train? That is the type of help the Minister of Sport can render in order to infuse into the Coloured people a keenness for tennis, because they will then have people who are able to be coaches. At the moment they are not sufficiently adept to do the work that they want to. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to help these Coloured men.

The hon. member for Karoo has handed me certain questions he asked the hon. the Minister and the replies to those questions. On the 10th February this year the hon. member asked the hon. the Minister—

1. (a) From which (1) white (2) Coloured (3) Indian and (4) Bantu sporting bodies, clubs, individuals, associations and institutions have applications for financial assistance been received by his Department,
2. (b) to which of them has financial assistance been given,
3. (c) where are their headquarters situated,
4. (d) what amount was paid to each and
5. (e) for what purpose was the assistance given?

The Minister in his reply gave a schedule. According to the hon. member who studied the schedule—I have only just received it— there has not been one application from the Coloured people, nor has any money been given to Coloured people. That is a sad state of affairs as far as I can see. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this extraordinary debate seems to consist of one person throwing a hard ball at the other and hoping that it will hit him in a vulnerable part, and receiving a soft ball gently back. Sport does not consist only of passing balls from one court to another. The hon. the Minister has other responsibilities. He will have to assume responsibility for mountain climbing, where we have accidents every now and then. He must take into consideration jumping, hurdling, hunting, yachting and wrestling. All these activities fall under the category of sport. There are many others. I am just mentioning a few to remind him that he has other responsibilities. I did not mention boxing because I hope he will not take too much notice of it. I just want to remind him that sport from a governmental aspect is nothing new. I find by investigation that in 1617, James I returned from Scotland and found a conflict in Lancashire in regard to Sunday amusements between the Puritans and the Gentry. “Permission was given for dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting and other harmless recreations and the setting up of maypoles and other sports, therewith used, so as the same may be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or neglect of divine service, and that women shall have leave to carry rushes to church for the decorating of it”. In 1618 he ordered the clergy throughout the whole of England to read the declaration from the pulpit. So strong was the opposition that he withdrew his command. Then his unfortunate son, Charles, in 1633, directed the republication of his father’s declaration. He insisted upon the clergy reading it. He lost his head, I think.

I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that he holds a responsible position. He will be called to answer for it. His responsibility goes beyond sport. There is also recreation. Nothing has been said about recreation in this debate. The word is “re-creation”, not “recreation”. It entails the re-creation of the spirit. What is “re-creation”? It is any activity engaged in voluntarily just for pleasure and satisfaction, for relaxation, for refreshment after toil, for renewal of spirit, for relief from boredom, or relief of emotional feelings, an outlet for repressed impulses and a sense of achievement. In fact, excluding work and eating and sleeping, all voluntary effort should —and I hope the hon. the Minister will guide it that way—be some form of re-creation. This is a heavy responsibility on the hon. the Minister, namely that he should provide for all leisure hours. As time goes on, modern machinery gives more leisure hours than before. The hon. the Minister is responsible for seeing to it that we are not bored; he has a responsibility towards juvenile delinquency. It is his responsibility to see to it that as far as possible juveniles have somewhere to play; that they have some outlet, for Satan finds mischief for idle hands. There are going to be many idle hands and the hon. the Minister is expected to guide those idle hands into places where they can do no harm and to provide them with some amusement.

Then I want to discuss the question as to whether we should encourage not only the active participant in sport but the spectator. The role of the spectator is of value to the sport. It is of value to the spectator to be able to see sport, if not directly then on television. If the hon. the Minister provided television he would be helping the old people and those who cannot attend sporting functions, whereas to-day they have to be content with listening to sport commentaries on the radio. There is a great deal of satisfaction and vicarious pleasure to be derived from watching sport, and the hon. the Minister must see to it that these facilities are provided.

The attitude towards sport has changed in the last 100 years. Formerly all play was regarded as wasteful and therefore wrong, but over the years we have come to realize that it is socially most desirable to have some sporting outlet. We find that in Great Britain in 1918 the National Education Association adopted a resolution that people should be taught the “worthy use of leisure” and in 1946 the Education Policies Commission stated that “education for recreational pursuits was imperative”. Sir, we look to this Minister to-help to guide his colleague, the Minister of Education, to provide places where youth can enjoy itself, not as a mere diversion but as an important social educational course. Sport amongst other things, is big business in some countries and to-day it is even being used, as he himself remarked, for political purposes. We know that before World War II the Fascists in Italy directed all children’s sport towards a war-like purpose, instilling into them the Fascist idea of creating a war-like game. We remember the “Strength through Joy” of Germany, and we can come nearer home and see how youth organizations, which were primarily established with the idea of providing a social service to children, have been diverted to racial aims in one way or another. I hope that the hon. the Minister and his Department will keep a careful eye on this point. [Time expired.]

Sir, one or two members opposite have accused us of dragging politics into this debate. I want to remind them that for 19 years this Government has made its bed as far as sport is concerned. We now have a new Department of Sport under a new Minister and a new sport policy. For 19 years Government members made their beds and now they must lie on them. I believe that some of them are going to find it somewhat uncomfortable.

Sir, I would like to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether his Department is prepared to receive applications for assistance from organizations which cater more for the recreational side than the actual sporting aspects? I have in mind bodies such as the outdoor school in Natal which not only teaches discipline to our youth but also teaches them a basic love of nature. Then there are, of course, movements, like the Boy Scouts and the Voortrekkers and Life Saving bodies which perform such a wonderful service along our coasts throughout the year. If there are better bodies to help our youth I do not know of them. There are units like the Boys Brigade, all of which render a wonderful service to our South African youth in teaching them discipline and good, sound citizenship. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he considers that his Department is able to assist these groups which I believe all play a part in developing a strong and healthy nation, sound in body and mind, to use the words which appeared in one of the Department’s brochures. Furthermore, these groups encourage character-building and discipline, as also set out in the brochure. I am not suggesting that any of these groups are on the point of approaching the Minister for assistance but it would be helpful to them if they knew just where they stood in this regard. I have no figures except for the Boy Scout group, but it might be of interest to the House to know that there are 19,292 Europeans in the Boy Scout movement, 1,608 Indians, 3,652 Coloureds and 17,933 Bantu Boy Scouts, making a total of over 34,000 youths at present serving in the Boy Scout movement. Surely South Africa owes them a debt of gratitude for the work they are doing, and a statement from the Minister along the lines I have suggested would be most helpful to these various groups. Talking of the youth, Sir, it might also be of interest to the Committee to know that at the last census in 1960, youth between the ages of 10 and 24 years of age numbered over three million—820,000 Europeans,461,000 Coloureds, 176,000 Indians and over 2½ million Bantu youth. The figure has, of course, changed drastically since 1960, and one can estimate now that nearly two-thirds of the white population is under the age of 35 and that in the case of the Bantu something like three-quarters is under the age of 35. It is this particular age group which I believe should be served by the Department of Sport.

Then, Sir, I would like to refer to the figures shown in the Estimates. The total of grants came to R136,000 but the expenses in running the Department amount to R114,000. I am not suggesting that the figure for running the Department was too high but it does seem to me that it took a lot of staff and money to spend R136,000. I see that in Durban an Indian association has started a trust fund of some R250,000 to assist Indian sport. I believe that they are to be sincerely congratulated in this respect. I am sure that they will be able to run this fund without anything like the overheads the Minister’s Department is incurring. I would also like to know how the amount of R136,000 has been spent. I notice from the figures that the hon. member for Karoo was looking at just now that one of the successful applicants was the S.A. Rugby Board, which received R4,000 for a national course for coaches. I think I am right in saying that the S.A. Rugby Board is the wealthiest sporting body in the whole of the Republic, and I think that assisting them with an amount of R4,000 was being a little over-generous. I see also from this that the S.A. Ladies’ Golf Union applied for assistance to send a Springbok team to the World Golf Championships in Mexico City last year, but this application was turned down. I do not know how these decisions are arrived at. The S.A. Surf Lifesaving Association received R1,500 to help them to go to Australia, and that is to be commended, but the Girl Guides Association put in an application which was turned down. I would like the Minister to tell me how these applications are made to him and how they are decided upon. I should also like to ask the Minister whether the point has been made in these figures that no grant was made to any non-White group. Did no non-White group apply for a grant? If they did apply, I take it that it would have appeared on the Schedules. But if they did apply for a grant and it was turned down, I would be very interested to know the reasons. I should also like to know how many non-Whites are employed in his Department, apart from, perhaps, messengers. He has a number of liaison officers who, I take it, are all highly experienced in their field, but since this Department, according to the Minister’s own statement, is to serve all racial groups, I wonder whether he has given attention to employing non-Whites in his Department to serve non-White sporting bodies. Another aspect on which I would like an answer from the Minister is the question of trying to persuade large industrial and commercial concerns to establish sportsfields and sporting facilities of their own for their staff. This has been done in this country by a very small number of concerns, whereas overseas the position is entirely different and large concerns make it one of their prime jobs to provide adequate facilities for their staffs in regard to sport. Would the Minister consider this particular aspect? I would be very grateful if he would pay special attention to the point I made earlier in regard to movements like the Boy Scouts and the Voortrekkers, etc.

I made inquiries about this golf course which the hon. the Prime Minister indicated was in existence, but neither the hon. the Prime Minister, who I am sorry is not here, nor the hon. the Minister of Sport can claim any credit for this golf course. Personally I would like to tell the Prime Minister in his absence that this golf course is not situated in my constituency, but I am concerned with Coloured affairs and my information comes from the Department of Coloured Affairs. I do not have to go to the City Council for my information. It now transpires that the City Council of Cape Town, out of their own funds, made it possible for the golf course to be erected at Athlone, but when the Prime Minister said it was being used, no wonder I did not know about it because it was still in a rough state and they allowed them to play on it if they wanted to, but only this week was it handed over by the City Council to the Golf Union. I therefore feel justified in having made these inquiries. I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give a grant to the City Council of Cape Town for this golf course, which after all was built by the ratepayers of the City and not by the Government. If the Minister would say yes, I would ring up the Town Clerk and ask him to put in his application straight away. I think it is on those lines that we would like to help Coloured sport.

If I look at the Schedule and see some of the applications for funds, am I not justified in asking the Minister to help these two tennis players and golfer like Papwa financially to go overseas, so that they can gain more experience and come back to serve their own communities? I hope the Minister will now give me a favourable reply in regard to the golf course I mentioned and that the House will realize the reasons why I did not know that this golf course in fact existed, because it was in its rough state and only this week was it handed over to the union. But when we have a Department of Sport and we have a large Coloured community and the Government has set aside a large area at Athlone-Bellville South-Eerste River, where there is plenty of land and no attempt has yet been made to provide sporting facilities, I say it is most unfortunate, and I sincerely trust that if something cannot be done during the next few months the Minister will come back next year and say that he has been able to help the Coloured people in regard to sport, just as he has helped others. I notice from one of the Schedules that the Minister actually granted people who were overseas funds to enable them to extend their tour. I have no quarrel with the Minister for having taken that decision, but what I say is that if that can be done for the white people then I am justified in making an appeal on behalf of the Coloured people also.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a form of keeping fit, a form which complements all existing forms of sport and exercise. As a main aim of the Department is to provide facilities for exercise for all those who are at present not practising active sport, this matter is one which deserves the Minister’s and his Department’s serious attention. I refer to the two series of exercises developed by the Royal Canadian Air Force—the 5BX 11-minutes-per-day-plan for men and the XBX 12-minutes-a-day-plan for women. I know when one refers to exercises one runs the risk of being met by the man who says he has to avoid exercises so that he can be fit enough to be at the funeral of his friends who are sporting fiends. I realize there is always this danger. Here, however, one must take a larger view and be prepared to examine this matter. I think many of us even in this House will really benefit from this. I am serious now. We would have so much more vigour and desire for the fray and the fight—the hon. the Minister included. This particular series of exercises are at the moment still very little known in South Africa. It was introduced by the Royal Canadian Air Force in Canada in 1958 for men and in 1960 for women. Quite soon it became a big seller in North America. I believe several million of this series of exercises in book form have been sold. It has now been issued in the well-known Penguin series. It is something which has momentum of its own. The hon. member for Newton Park pointed out that even amongst our youngsters—boys and girls at school—a very low proportion of them actually take part in outside sporting activities. I think he said the figure was 33 per cent for boys and 25 per cent in respect of girls on the basis of a sample of 18 Cape schools. If that is the position with our school children who have so many facilities at their beck and call, one realizes to what extent aging people like ourselves are not getting sufficient of this type of thing.

I hope you are speaking for yourself only.

I speak for myself but I am sure I also speak for more in this House than I would care to admit!

This is the age where we tend to go every where on wheels instead of on our feet, and where we do go on foot we go at such a slow pace that according to the pundits it does not do us any good at all. A great advantage of this particular series of exercises is that it demands very little time—at the maximum 11 minutes. And once you get to the top notch you only have to do them three times per week. In this respect it is therefore very bearable. Furthermore, there is no expense involved except the price of the little book— which is 37 cents retail. To this I should like to return just now. Let me read this passage from the foreword—

The hon. member should not mix sport with hard labour.

That is why I refer to the fun so often poked at people advocating this hard labour by those who know better than to do it. The S.A.B.C. exercises cannot in any way be taken as being the same thing. The S.A.B.C. exercises are just one set of exercises done by young and old. They are not easier or harder for those of an age where they can do more. Furthermore, they have to be done at a set time each day. But there are many other points of difference. These exercises of the Royal Canadian Air Force can be done in your own time. You need no gymnasium equipment at all. I do not think it can be doubted that if one can muster up the energy to decide to do this these exercises constitute indeed an excellent course.

I should like to suggest ways and means by which the Minister could help to encourage the introduction and application of this type of thing. First of all, he could subsidize the book. He could negotiate with the Royal Canadian Air Force or with the Canadian government to distribute it here in South Africa for a very nominal charge. One beauty of it is that it is already within the reach of most but it could help more if it could be made even cheaper. Then it may be necessary to advertise the need for fitness. I do not believe there is an hon. member in this House who having seen the last of 40 does not get backache from time to time. One of the major causes of backache is weakening back muscles. Often we take patent remedies and things like that but if you get down on your back or on your tummy and do a few of these exercises you will be right in no time! Then there is the question of possibly assisting bodies prepared to propagate the series. The Minister in his policy statement in the Senate during this year indicated that he was supporting the national fitness scheme initiated by the South African Federation for Youth and Sport and the South African Association of Physical Education and Recreation. But this scheme is something different. This is the scheme for which gold, silver and bronze medals are awarded but for this you have to be able to run a mile within quite a short time and swim 100 yards and do all kinds of things which go far beyond the type of thing envisaged by this series of exercises. Therefore the Minister could perhaps encourage certain of these bodies to introduce this scheme to complement their own. Also the Department itself could take it up—it could launch it, publicize it and push it through. It could contribute a great deal to bring about greater fitness and through that enjoyment of life, apart from other consequential advantages for people who at the moment do not feel well but do not know why. One of the great advantages of this scheme is that it tones muscles up inside as well as outside. So I commend it strongly to the hon. the Minister as not impinging upon existing activities and particularly the activities of the sporting bodies in the well-known sports.

I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Pinelands had to say. I know he, like the Secretary of my Department and I hope like myself, is an enthusiast when it comes to the question of keeping fit. This booklet of the Canadian Air Force was given to me years ago. I read it carefully and followed some of the exercises, but unfortunately I let my good intentions go by the way. I exercised in other ways. I cannot agree more with the hon. member when he referred to members of this House needing some type of exercise like outlined here. The difficulty, of course, is to get members to do them. The hon. member for Newton Park knows that I offered the services of the Department to hon. members on that side of the House as well as on this side of the House for the purpose of running some sort of fitness scheme for members of Parliament. But I am afraid the reception to the suggestion I got was nil. As a matter of fact, I have not heard from hon. members since then. That, then, is the problem. Like the hon. member for Pinelands I also have listened to the S.A.B.C. exercises and have probably done them whilst still in bed. But to get down to it is quite a different matter.

The trouble is that a few of the hon. members on your side are scared of by-elections.

I do not want to bring politics into sport—according to the Opposition that is a terrible thing to do. But let me deal with the points raised in the sequence in which they have been raised. First of all there is the hon. member for Newton Park who took me to task for, as he alleged, bringing politics into this debate. I want to point out to the hon. member that only a few minutes ago the hon. member for Durban (Central) talked about the fascist idea of organizing sport amongst people and that we must be very careful that that does not develop in South Africa. [Interjection.] I want to say to the hon. member that there is this attempt even to-day to try to create an atmosphere that here in South Africa we must see to it that there are none of these foreign ideologies creeping into our sporting activities. The hon. member said that he had on several occasions suggested and appealed that the Government should create a Department of Sport. I want to ask the hon. member this. Does he regard the establishment of a Department of Sport in South Africa as a Nazi movement? He does not. I think that he should speak to the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to ask the hon. member another question. Doss he regard the Department of Sport as something that was necessary for South Africa?

I said so before.

Very well, then he must speak to the hon. member for Constantia who said that it was an unnecessary department.

At this juncture.

No. The hon. member said regarding a miserable R150,000 in a Budget that was over a R1,000 million, that he considered the R150 000 as being a waste of taxpayers’ money. That was when it came to the financial side. Then he added this, “on an unnecessary department”. They can try to argue out of it as much as they like. It is a fact and the hon. member for Yeoville knows it. He is trying to get his party out of its dilemma. I am not bluffed by all this noise from the hon. member. I know the reception that this Department received from certain hon. members of the United Party. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Newton Park also told me that I was playing politics. I am just telling him what the true facts are. I am not letting them get away with not knowing what the facts are.

Do you want this over and over again every year?

No. I said that I would drop the matter if the hon. member for Constantia said that when he thought it over, this was quite an unnecessary remark which he had made. I said that I would never raise the matter again. I also said that to the hon. member for Wynberg. If she said that this suggestion that it was a Nazi development was not what she meant, I said that I would never raise what she had said again. I am still waiting to hear from her. The hon. member for Newton Park must be very careful. He probably thinks that I am over-sensitive but some very nasty remarks have been made in the past. The Press that supports the United Party said in leaders that any English-speaking South African who has anything to do with the Nationalist Party, is a traitor to his people. Even this session a member of that party had to withdraw the word “quisling”, referring to the hon. member for Maitland because he is an English-speaking member in the Nationalist Party. They would like to forget about these remarks. They think that they are entitled to say these things about hon. members on this side of the House. That is quite in order but if you defend yourself, then you are playing politics. Let them stop their games and we will run this country as we are running it now.

Why are you so sensitive?

Mr. Chairman, there you have it again! The hon. member for Durban (Point) says why am I so sensitive. Why? Because I think those remarks are uncalled for. They are of a personal nature and they should stop making them. I think those hon. members know by the results of election after election that that horse will not run any more in the political race in South Africa. They have overdone it and the people do not believe them any more. That is what it amounts to.

I want to come to the first general point that has been raised by a number of members, namely the recreational functions and plans of this Department. At the beginning I want to point out to the hon. member that the terms of reference of the Department of Sport are introduced by these words:

Naturally one immediately considers sport and recreation active participation. One may also say that it could be limited to active participation. The Department accepts the fact that it can go further. It accepts the fact that recreation can mean something more than active participation. One hon. member mentioned that the Department of Sport has now taken over the secretariat of an inter-departmental committee on recreation considering whether areas should be reserved for recreation, or whether State land should not be sold for private exploitation but whether instead it should be held for the people as a recreation area in posterity. The Department itself is active in the matter. I realize that there may be areas of forest, beaches, etc. where the only exercise or active participation available to people will be fishing or walking. The fact that 86 per cent of our white population is in the cities makes us realize that you must give them some natural outlets where they can also relax, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) stated. From that point of view the Department fully understands the position. It realizes that these areas will take some time to develop. It realizes that its activities in that direction cannot take place overnight. Nevertheless it does not dismiss it as something it has no intention of taking over. Personally I accept the importance of these places for family recreation. I think that one of the finest forms of exercise is walking. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned actual physical exercise. I have it on authority that one of the finest forms of exercise which is available to anybody free of charge is to walk four miles a day. That was what our people had to do in the past. Nowadays we drive everywhere in motorcars. We take our children to school in motorcars. They do not even walk to school. That is why to a large extent the population of South Africa is suffering from a lack of exercise. [Interjection.] If you do four miles an hour you are not dawdling. It is quite a brisk walk.

The next point of general interest was the one raised by many members in regard to the allocation of R122,000 in the Budget for grants-in-aid. I must say that I felt that the hon. member for Port Natal introduced an unnecessarily critical atmosphere. He compared the amount required for the administration of this Department unfavourably with the grants-in-aid. I would say that the cost of the administration of this Department as shown by the figures here is almost at a minimum namely R32,000. These people must administer so many functions which are the responsibility of this Department. The hon. member seemed to think that we were overloading the staff of this Department, at the expense of the grants-in-aid. I think that the hon. member is quite wrong in his interpretation of these figures. When he talked about the Indian community and some voluntary sporting body doing the job much better on a much smaller financial administrative scale, I felt quite frankly that that was an unnecessary reference and comparison.

Any criticism is unnecessary.

No, I am quite happy to reply to the other criticism that the hon. member made. This reference to overloaded administration and grants-in-aid was a criticism which I did not think was necessary. I raised it because I am now referring to grants-in-aid and some of the points the hon. member mentioned. Basically the amount which the department has for grants-in-aid is not a great deal. R122,000 over a year obviously means that one must look at the applications circumspectly. One must judge them on their merits and see what we can do. We have certain general guide lines. This is what I want to bring to the attention of hon. members, for their own benefit and also so that they convey that information to sporting bodies they may contact. Basically we want to concentrate our activities in South Africa. I say “basically” because it is here that we want to broaden the pyramid of our people taking an active part in healthy forms of exercise. We run training courses for coaches. When I say that we run courses, I mean that we subsidize sporting bodies to have them. We feel that that is very important, because if we are able to train coaches, they can exercise their influence on a far larger number of people than if only one person was sent overseas. We also help them with their general administration. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) spoke about the self-sacrifice of sporting administrators and coaches. I cannot agree with him more. They do it because of their love for the game, and because of their interest in a particular sport. We go out of our way to say: Do you have administration problems? We do not think in terms of sports which, because of their gates, have any amount of funds available for administration. We think in terms of a sport, such as netball, or sports bodies who do not have the access to finances from gates and have to collect their finances from members in the form of subscriptions. We say: In what way can we subsidize you and help you with your administration? We do this in regard to national sports bodies and also recreational bodies. We also endeavour to help the participation in South Africa of individuals from overseas of international standard. We help to bring people from overseas into South Africa for particular sports. We consider that such a person or such persons can convey to our people their knowledge and coach our own people to the benefit of that particular sport as a whole. We consider that that is money well spent, from the point of view of our active participation in sport. We also occasionally invite to South Africa experts of international standard. When I say experts, I mean people who can lecture and discuss certain aspects of physical fitness and physical exercise. There have been occasions when we have assisted women’s hockey in South Africa to send someone overseas on a coaching tour. We did not think of sending somebody representing a sport which had plenty of funds available to it, but we were prepared to assist a South African woman to go overseas on a certain coaching tour.

We also have to face up to the question of teams or individuals going overseas to represent South Africa. That, I think, is one of our big problems. There are many sporting participants who go overseas. I am very pleased to see teams go overseas. The more that go overseas, the better. The only point is, to what extent must we as a department finance such trips? As far as a team is concerned, we do not consider that we have the funds available to finance or to subsidize a team going overseas. The hon. member for Boland said that we gave funds to allow a team to go on an extended tour. What we did was that we gave them funds to include a coaching course on their tour. We gave a fencing body R480 to send people on a coaching course. They paid for all their tour expenses, but then there was a coaching course in Germany, if I am not mistaken. We said: “We cannot finance you on your trip. Good luck to you. Have an enjoyable trip. Do well for South Africa. All we can do is assist you to go to this particular coaching course.” That is what the hon. member referred to. When it comes to teams, our problem is as I have described it to hon. members. Let us take an individual of world standard, for example Karen Muir, who has broken world swimming records, an individual who as such puts the sporting spotlight on South Africa. I have always said that if I was ever approached in that respect, I would favourably consider some sort of subsidy towards a trip overseas by such an individual. This must be an individual of world standard, not someone who is not of world standard. I would be very happy if a promising individual were to go overseas and gradually build himself or herself up to world standard, but the money that we have at this stage is such that we can support only persons who are already of world standard. Then there is the question of team games, such as women’s hockey.

Ladies’ golf?

I shall come to that. I would say that there is a big difference between the two. If I am not mistaken, the women’s hockey team were world champions at one tournament. They receive no gates. They have always financed everything they have to do through their own efforts. I must say that I compliment them on the way they do it. They do not mind sacrifices. They as a team were going to a world tournament. I realized that one cannot split a hockey team into individuals breaking world records. In that case, because they were of world class and because they had established themselves as world champions, I said that we should do something about helping them to go on tour to a world tournament overseas. The hon. member spoke about women’s golf. I am very happy that these women should be going to Mexico, or wherever they intend touring. But from the point of view of having an outstanding South African player, which would be my criterion, there was no one in respect of whom I could say that assistance would be given.

What about Papwa?

I shall come to Papwa in a minute. Let me finish this point in regard to women’s golf. We were anxious to help them in every way we could, but we were not in a position to give them financial assistance for a trip of that sort. Those are the sort of guidelines that we have to lay down. It is not as though we have unlimited funds at our disposal. We have to lay down our own priorities and our own guide-lines.

What about the Rugby Union?

The South African Rugby Board applied for assistance to introduce a coaching course, and the S.A. Rugby Board is not the wealthy body that the hon. member for Port Natal thinks it is. The Transvaal Rugby Union and the Western Province Rugby Union may be wealthy unions but the S.A. Rugby Board is not a wealthy body whose coffers are over-flowing with money. It was a coaching course that was conducted; it was not a tour. Sir, I believe that rugby has not only developed the physique of our young people but it has helped to develop their character, and, after all, that is what we seek to achieve. The Transvaal Rugby Union runs its own courses. The Transvaal Rugby Union and the other rugby unions pay a certain amount to the S.A. Rugby Board. I do not think it is my duty to go to the Transvaal Rugby Union and say to them: “Why don’t you give R4,000 to the S.A. Rugby Board?” The Transvaal Rugby Union may have considerable funds at its disposal—and I do not begrudge them the money they have at their disposal—but they also use those funds in order to provide playing fields and other facilities for our young people. I am very happy indeed to see this voluntary effort. I do not want to create any ill-will between the Transvaal Rugby Union and my Department or between the S.A. Rugby Board and the Transvaal Rugby Union.

I now come to the case which the hon. member for Boland mentioned. The hon. member said that there was not one Coloured sporting body that was being assisted by this Department. I think he got the reply to that allegation from the hon. member for Karoo. Assistance to non-White sport bodies is given by the Department concerned. My Department does not grant financial subsidies to them. What it does is to give technical advice and it is prepared to give this assistance at the request of the Department concerned. The Coloured Affairs Department has approached us in the past with various ideas, but it is quite wrong to expect my Department to use a certain amount of this R122,000 in order to build a golf course for Coloureds or to subsidize the City Council which laid out the golf course at Athlone. It is not only in the case of the Coloured golf course that we have refused to grant a subsidy. I have refused all requests for capital expenditure. I have had requests for assistance in order to build swimming baths and many other similar amenities. I would say that the requests to this Department for capital expenditure ran into millions of rand. We have had requests for assistance to build swimming baths and tennis courts and country clubs, and in each case we have made it clear that capital expenditure is not a function of this Department. It is not our function to build a swimming bath, for instance, but if we are asked to assist in providing coaching facilities, then we will quickly fall into line and give the necessary assistance. If this Department were to sink its funds into capital expenditure, our funds would very soon be depleted. The hon. member also referred to other non-White sporting bodies. As hon. members know, a Bantu boxing team recently went over to Italy. That team went with the blessing of the Department of Bantu Affairs. The Department of Bantu Affairs did not subsidize them directly, but the Minister of Bantu Administration authorized the release of the funds which various local authorities had donated to cover the cost of the tour. Sir, this department can work and will work, but of course the hon. member must realize that it takes time for these activities to get into their stride. I am satisfied that not only the White people of South Africa but the Coloured people, the Bantu and the Indians will also benefit from the establishment of a Department of Sport. The attitude of this Department and of the Government is shown by the State President’s Award. That award is not confined to one racial group. All South Africans can qualify for it. We know that in many fields of sport the non-Europeans have not yet reached the high standards the Europeans have reached, but I repeat that the award is not restricted to any particular race. The hon. member will realize that the White people of South Africa have always been much more sport-conscious than any other section, and it is only natural that their standards will be higher than those of the non-Whites. Sir, I hope that what I have said here will give hon. members some idea of the guide-lines we have laid down in deciding how to spend the money.

But you have two tennis players who have been coached overseas.

Sir, the application must come through the Coloured Affairs Department. The whole case will have to be considered on its merits by the Coloured Affairs Department and if they ask for our advice we will be very happy to give it.

Then I want to come to the actual allocations. In order to agree to all the applications submitted to us, we would have had to spend R800,000 where as in point of fact we only had R122,000 at our disposal. It was necessary therefore to lay down priorities, as I have already indicated. Let me just give hon. members some idea as to how we have spent this money. As far as coaching and training courses are concerned, a sum of R37-.000 was granted for 106 projects. As far as general administration is concerned as stated we are anxious to assist wherever we can. Surfing has been mentioned here as a sport which deserves encouragement. I think surfing is a wonderful sport and we were only too glad to assist in promoting the administration of this sport. In respect of general administration we have granted a sum of R21,800. The amount of assistance that we granted in connection with experts who came from abroad to South Africa or in respect of South Africans who were sent abroad to study techniques over there, was R4,300; for research we granted R2,000; for international sport in South Africa we granted R8,200. This was to enable teams or individuals to visit South Africa, and there were eight projects involved. For basic equipment we granted R2,500 and for international participation abroad, R14,700. The balance of R30,000 will be devoted to certain limited ad hoc projects from time to time. Members must understand that it is not the function of the State or of this Department to meet the expenditure of teams which go on oversea tours. That is a responsibility which rests with the National or Provincial body concerned.

Sir, I do not want to go into a whole lot of other details. I just want to assure the hon. member for Houghton with regard to the points raised by her about open recreational spaces that we are in close touch with the other departments who may be involved. I can assure her that the importance of recreation and open spaces is something that we appreciate. She referred particularly to the Fort. I do not know the full details of the arrangements and future of this area.

With regard to the question of skiing resorts in South Africa I can tell her that I was also approached about the possibilities. I realize that a lot of money is spent overseas by South Africans who are attracted by the skiing facilities there. The only trouble in this country is that although our mountains have the slopes, they apparently do not have the requisite depth of snow. It was suggested to me that we could make artificial snow, but the cost of making artificial snow proved to be so exorbitant that it made me realize that this scheme in a country with the climate that South Africa has, could never be regarded as viable, even if the project were undertaken by private enterprise. All I can say to the hon. member is that perhaps we have a substitute in South Africa for snow-skiing. I think water skiing is a sport which is developing tremendously in this country, and although it may not be as attractive to certain people as snow skiing, the fact nevertheless remains that ever-increasing numbers of our people are taking an interest in this sport. Of course, it has the excitement of skiing. It is very attractive to the young people, particularly, as is also the new ride surfing, which has made tremendous strides in the last years.

In regard to sports centres I quite appreciate the suggestions that have been made. I do not dismiss them. I do not think it is something which will happen very soon, but it is a development which has taken place in other countries. I know there is a big sports centre in Rome. I do not know whether we can as easily decide where the sports clinic should be situated in South Africa. There was a suggestion that there should be one in the north and one in the south, but I think the hon. member for Von Brandis will realize that other areas will also make such claims. If we have such a centre in Pretoria there will be an immediate demand for one in Johannesburg, and one in Cape Town, and possibly in Durban also. One realizes that here there is a very wide field indeed. The hon. member for Port Natal spoke about the youth. I would like to point out to him that we are not a Department of Youth; we are a Department of Sport and Recreation, and although we have sponsored adventure camps for the youth and we do so enthusiastically, we have not even entertained the idea of subsidizing any of those bodies he mentioned. In any case, not one of them has ever applied for a subsidy. I do not think the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides have approached the Department. I would point out to the hon. member that I think they are admirable movements and I have nothing against them, but I think one must draw the line at subsidizing such bodies. They have carried on very well in the past and we are anxious to assist in other ways, but subsidizing them is quite a different matter.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that the National Fitness Scheme was a bit too tough for us old men. But that scheme has gold medals and silver medals for the various age groups. It may be tough for a man of 20 to 25 in that group to get a gold medal, but I do not think it will be as tough for the age group in which we fall. There is not just one standard of fitness. It covers the various age groups and that is why I appreciated his comments about the S.A.B.C. exercises, because they are there for everybody. All I can say is that if you do undertake those exercises regularly, whatever your age is, I am sure you will benefit. I would suggest to the hon. member that possibly he and I could go in for this fitness scheme and see whether we cannot set an example for members of Parliament. Should we receive a medal or two which we can wear on occasion it may make all of them keen so that in the end all members of Parliament will acquire medals under this fitness scheme.

I suggested to the Minister that he should raise finance for a sports institute. I should like to know whether he will give this matter his attention and possibly take a lead.

I will have a talk to the hon. member about this. I am not sure how he means to raise the finance. All I am handling here at the present moment is the actual amount I am asking this Committee to vote, and what he mentions obviously goes beyond the scope of my budget.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 42,—“Commerce and Industries, R12,919,000” and Loan Vote J,—“Commerce and Industries, R29,500,000’’:

I am rising at the outset to say a few words on two matters. The one is in regard to the sugar industry and the other is in regard to the third Iscor. I am doing so because these two matters affect the constituencies of many hon. members, and as I expect them to put questions in this regard, and it would be a great help if I said something about these two matters at the outset.

In the first place then a few thoughts in regard to the sugar industry. The sugar industry in South Africa is a large and important industry and on the world list it stands seventh. There are 115,000 people employed in the agricultural sector of this industry. In the factory sector there are 36,000 workers, while there are more than 2,000 White, almost 1,800 Indians and 3,400 Bantu sugar growers who, together with their families, are dependent upon this industry. During the course of the past few years the production of sugar has increased considerably and it will also continue to do so next year. Where it has up to now been approximately 1.4 million tons per year it will increase to approximately 1.8 million tons per year. The investment in the sugar industry—and here I am referring in particular to the factories—has increased from R48 million to R123 million during the past three years. The expansion of the industry has also cost many million, but I do not have the figures at my disposal. This expansion in the sugar industry is attributable to two factors in particular, namely, in the first place, the increase in the world price round about 1963, and secondly, the expectation that in a few years’ time international arrangements as far as quotas were concerned would once more have been resorted to. The Sugar Association therefore deemed it to be in the long-term interests of the sugar industry if we increased our own production as much as possible. As a result of the representations which were made to the Government this production was subsequently increased. Recently a calculation was made by the Department of Commerce and Industry, as well as by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and it was found that the sugar industry must have an income of approximately R62.50 per ton, and on that income it would just pay. It was not profitable, but that was the absolute minimum on which the industry could survive. When I speak of the sugar industry in this regard, then I include the sugar producer and the distributor as well. As a result of the fluctuations in world prices our sugar industry is dependent upon those prices, because it affects the price which our exporters receive. We export between 700,000 and 800,000 tons per year, and that is the maximum that we are able to export on our present production. The sugar industry’s returns from abroad are very important and because they fluctuate they cause occasional insecurity in the industry. In this way the price of sugar reached a low level last year. After the deduction of costs, it was calculated in Durban at R50 per ton. The previous year it had been up to R75 per ton. We see therefore that these fluctuations must of necessity have an effect on the sugar industry. During the past few years, and particularly since last year, the price has been low and as a result of that the sugar industry has been badly hit. There were other factors as well which have affected the industry, particularly the severe drought which prevailed in Natal and the Eastern Transvaal. That affected production. The result of these factors for the sugar industry was that during the past year the minimum price was far too low to keep the industry going. As a result of that this industry made representations to the Government for assistance. When the price of sugar was considered it was decided in the first instance to increase the price of sugar in the interior by lc to 7c for White sugar and 6.7 cents for brown. Apart from that it was agreed, in the second instance, to grant the sugar industry a loan of R10 million in respect of the past season. However, I want to point out that even with that increase, which they received for a part of the year, as well as the loan of R10 million, which has already been distributed, the industry still did not receive R62.5 per ton. Its income was only R51.29 per ton. We see therefore that there is still a shortage which the sugar industry has to carry itself. The assistance which is being given is in the form of a loan which has to be paid back if the world price of sugar increases to such an extent that the average income of the sugar industry exceeds R62.5 per ton.

We realize that the increase in the price of sugar may have an inflationary effect in the country, but at the same time I want to point out that for many years our sugar farmers have been receiving a lower price than that which was being received for sugar on the overseas market. Practically since 1954 and even before then, up to 1960 the domestic price of our sugar was lower than the world price. Consequently our domestic consumer has over the years reaped the benefits of that lower price. Now the position has been reversed; we were compelled to increase the domestic price in order to keep this important industry going, but notwithstanding this increase it is a fact that our sugar price is one of the lowest in the word. As I have said, white sugar now costs 7 cents per lb. here. In Germany the price is 9.9 cents, in France 9 cents, in the United Kingdom 6.8 cents and in the United States of America 8.4 cents per lb. Throughout Asia the price is higher than it is here, except in the Philipines where it is 5.1 cents. In Rhodesia the price of sugar is 8.5 cents per lb. I am mentioning this to indicate that, in spite of the increase of one cent, which was deemed necessary in the interests of the industry, sugar in South Africa, relatively speaking, is still amongst the cheapest in the world.

When that increase was announced we also announced that we were going to institute a commission of inquiry into the entire sugar industry. I can tell hon. members who are interested that the terms of reference have already been drawn up in draft form and will be submitted shortly. The terms of reference are comprehensive and cover practically every aspect of the industry, the problems of the producer, the problems of the industrialist, the producer-cum-planter, the distributor, and even aspects such as the processing of waste products, and so on. There is not a single aspect which will not be covered. That is why I do not think it is necessary for representations to be made to the Government in regard to what the terms of reference should include. We shall try to appoint a strong commission, one which is not too large and which can work rapidly. We hope that they will be able to produce results soon.

At the same time I want to make an appeal to the sugar industry as a whole. I want to ask them, while this commission is deliberating, to continue with their attempts to make the sugar industry as efficient as possible. Here I want to add that I think it is an efficient industry. They must also continue with their attempts to obtain the best prices for our export sugar. I think that an equally important task for them is to continue with deliberate attempts to undertake research into the by-products of sugar in order to see whether they cannot be utilized to a greater extent. I hope that the reports which will be published will throw some light on any deficiencies which may exist in the industry.

The other matter which I want to mention here is that of the third Iscor. We know that expansions at Vanderbijlpark have recently been approved. Within a few years that undertaking will have reached its maximum production. Apart from the extension which is also under construction now, it is essential that we should begin thinking of the possible location of a third Iscor. The existing steel industry is established around Pretoria, Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging and even at Middelburg. It has therefore been established in the industrialized interior. I think that in respect of the third Iscor we should consider other possible places, places situated along the coast with a view to harbours which may be necessary for exports or for distribution to other centres, places such as Cape Town, Mossel Bay, Port Elizabeth, East London, so as to be able to undertake exports from the centre where the factory will be established to the other overseas consumers whom I have mentioned. There is another aspect as well, namely, whether the third Iscor should not be established at a place where the raw products are available.

It is against this background that a suitable site will have to be sought. It is possible that a decision will be taken in regard to this site during the course of this year so that the factory can start producing in 1972 and produce a maximum of 3 million tons of steel in the year 1980. Of course an undertaking such as this requires considerable services. The amount of land required for such an undertaking is approximately 1,000 morgen. The water consumption will be approximately 4.5 million gallons per day for the production of one million tons of steel. Therefore, when the factory reaches its maximum production of 3 million tons, it will need 13.5 million galans of water per day. As for power consumption is concerned, it will be approximately 3 million kilowatts per day when the factory is in full production.

A very important factor is that of transport, because the ore which will have to be transported will amount to 250,000 tons per month. The particulars which I am supplying here are based on a production volume of 1 million tons. Thus, when the factory is in full production, these requirements will be about three times greater than these particulars. Approximately 67,000 tons of steel will have to be transported to our coastal harbours. Then there are the by-products such as coke, of which approximately 15,000 tons per month will also have to be transported. Railway connections are therefore important.

As far as employment is concerned it is calculated that by 1972 approximately 300 Whites and 150 non-Whites will be employed. When the second stage is reached, that is by 1974, it is calculated that 4,000 Whites and 2,000 non-Whites will be employed. In the eighties, when the project has been completed, approximately 8,000 Whites and 4,000 non-Whites will be employed. That is only in the factory itself. That does not take into account all the so-called satellite industries which will arise around this steel factory. We have good examples, both in Pretoria and in Vanderbijlpark, of all these other factories and industries which are dependent upon the waste products. This also does not take into account the services and commerce which have to follow. It is clear therefore that a large concentration of population will develop there. Precisely because provision will have to be made for such a large infrastructure, and because so many departments are involved, this matter was in the first instance referred to a central committee of the Department of Planning on which all the chief officials of interested Departments serve. They made thorough investigations into quite a number of possible locations. They had to investigate the labour structure in the neighbourhood, the population pressure, water, power, transport facilities, etc., as well as the possible utilization of harbours in the region. Iscor itself is undertaking the necessary calculation of expenses which are required when such an undertaking is being planned. The central committee has investigated places in the interior where there are minerals, such as Kimberley, Newcastle, Phalaborwa, Colenso and Vryheid, and harbours such as Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay and Richards Bay. The possibility of the Orange River area, i.e. in the region of Aliwal and Queenstown, have also been investigated. That does not mean to say that it will necessarily be established at one of those places; it may even be in the vicinity of these places that the next Iscor may be established. I can assure you that this committee consulted with the municipalities. All the necessary data has already been obtained in regard to the establishment factors. As I have said, Iscor is still making certain calculations, but it is not merely a question of costs. There are considerations in regard to labour which have to be borne in mind. The fact that such an establishment can create an important point of growth must also be taken into consideration. There are also social considerations such as the willingness of the workers to establish themselves in a certain locale. There are even strategic considerations which have to be taken into account. The establishment of such an industry can even help to solve certain social problems. I want to give you the assurance that all these factors will be taken into thorough consideration when a decision is taken. When the time is right, and when all the data is available, we will, against this background I have sketched, give an indication of where this third Iscor will be established.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the privilege of the half-hour. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has taken this opportunity to make the statement he has made because I think that it will facilitate dealing with his Vote. Everybody will wait anxiously for the final decision on the siting of the new third Iscor which, as is obvious from the figures the hon. the Minister gave, is going to be an undertaking of the first magnitude. As far as the sugar industry is concerned, we are of course aware of the fact that the sugar industry is passing through a difficult period. The problems they have are very involved. I think that the Government is doing the right thing in appointing the commission as announced by the Minister with wide terms of reference and that the commission will be asked to report as soon as possible. That being so, I do not think that we can usefully pursue the subject of sugar during this debate. We on this side of the House will let the matter stand. We are satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s statement in regard to the steps he has taken.

Of course there are several other matters to be discussed on this Vote. I want to confine myself in the first instance to certain large amounts appearing on the Vote and to ask whether we cannot have further information on them. The first one is the amount in respect of the External Procurements Fund. Here we have an amount of R2 million on the Revenue Vote and an amount of R8 million on the Loan Vote. This is to be a loan free of interest to the Procurements Fund. I should like the Minister to explain to the Committee why it has been necessary to split it up in this fashion. This is presumably a part of the R30 million we were told about, which is in due course to be allocated to the External Procurements Fund. It is not clear on the face of it why it is necessary to split it up in this way. The R8 million interest-free loan is to be made to the External Procurements Fund. What is the External Procurements Fund going to do with it? The External Procurements Fund staff consists of an accountant and two clerks at the moment. They are going to handle some R30 million. What are they going to do? Is the fund going to lend this money to other people? If so, for what period is it going to be lent, and what kind of security is going to be available against that loan? What the Committee is being asked to do now, taking the Estimates as they stand, is to make a loan of R8 million free of interest to unknown people for unknown purposes. Whilst one has no desire to endanger public safety by demanding to know State secrets, I do feel that we are entitled to have some more information as to how this fund is going to work. We understand that the fund is going to obtain certain things. What they are, we do not know. We have not heard anything about it. I think we were told that it was not in the public interest to discuss the matter. That is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, I think we are entitled to know just how it is going to work. It seems unreasonable to ask us simply to vote R8 million to the fund without any knowledge of how it is going to be used, how it is to be repaid, what security there will be for the loan. I hope the Minister will be able to assist us to some extent anyway by giving us more information.

Then, on page 250 under subhead E, there is an amount of R210,000 in respect of a rebate on railage in respect of articles manufactured in the Transkei-Ciskei complex. I take it that that is something in regard to concessions for border industries. One wonders whether it is only the Transkei-Ciskei complex which is being helped by Railway rebates. I would like to know how many factories in the Transkei-Ciskei complex are sharing in this amount of R210,000. I would also like to know how much each factory is getting out of that amount and how the amount is arrived at. Does the Railway Department simply send a debit note for the total amount to the department, or do the factories concerned render statements to the department who then give them the rebate which is paid to the Railways? How does it work? Because this is continuing. It is not the first year it has taken place. Presumably it may increase if the principle has been adopted of subsidizing border industries by way of railage rebates. It may increase. I think that the House is entitled to know how this system works. Regarding this particular instance, I think we are entitled to know how many factories are involved in this particular case and how much each factory is receiving.

Then there is an amount of R518,000 in respect of the film industry. I think another of my colleagues is going to deal with that, so I shall not refer to it. But there is another matter about which we should like some more information, namely the subsidy to the shipbuilding industry of R1 million. That is a new Vote and there is no information at all about how that is going to be used or who is going to get it. I would like to know who is going to qualify for this subsidy. Has any percentage of subsidy been fixed and who is going to handle the awarding of the subsidy? Who is going to get it? Is the person who is going to buy the ship going to get the subsidy or is it the man who builds the ship? Mr. A will want to have a ship built. He will presumably get contractors and have a dozen people tendering for the ship. In tendering, they presumably will want to know what kind of subsidy they are going to get. Similarly, on the other hand, if the person who is going to buy the ship is going to be aided, he will want to know what assistance he can get. So it is important to know who is going to get the subsidy. I think that one ought to be told just how they propose to handle the question and who is going to administer it and deal with it. I can foresee the possibility of considerable manipulation when it comes to tendering and the acceptance of tenders where subsidies are involved, unless the procedure is very clearly laid down and understood so that there is no possibility of collusion between the buyer and the manufacturer in regard to these subsidies.

Then there is a payment of R1 million to the Industrial Development Corporation. We would like some information as to what that payment is for. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us what the payment is in respect of. Then, of course, there is an amount of R18,500,000 on the Loan Vote for the purchasing of further shares in the Industrial Development Corporation. Incidentally, I am not quite sure, but I think the authorized capital of the Corporation is R190 million. They arranged last year, I think, to split their shares up into R1 shares. They have at present 172 million shares issued and they have 18 million shares still for issue. So assuming they are going to issue them at par—and I cannot suppose that the Government is going to pay a premium for I.D.C. shares—the I.D.C. will not have 18½ million shares to sell to the Government. They will therefore have to alter their constitution so as to increase their share capital again. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will let us know how this is going to work.

We have the report of the Industrial Development Corporation for last year, a very well-produced and interesting document. I should like to say something about it and I think the Committee would be failing in its duty if it did not pay some attention to this report. Because, as I say, it is a very interesting report, interesting for what it contains, and to me even more interesting for what it does not contain. It is certainly interesting enough to make one want to know more. One does feel, without reflecting in the least on the report itself, that this Committee and Parliament should know more about what the Industrial Development Corporation is doing. I suggest that the Committee has a look for a moment at the balance sheet as published in this report. The corporation has an issued capital of R172 million, practically all of which has been voted by Parliament. Now we have a further R18.5 million to be voted, in order to bring their share capital up to R190.5 million. In addition to that they have issued registered loan stock, public stock, for R35 million. So they have capital in those two forms of about R225 million. During last year they did financial business to the tune of some R30 million. We were told that the shares they issued last year and the money we voted—the Minister may be able to tell us incidentally what they are going to do with the money we have voted this year, namely R18½ million—were used last year for border industries (R12 million odd), the Cable Company (R3 million), the South-West African Development Company (R400,000) and for various other undertakings (R14 million). It means that they did business to the tune of nearly R30 million. They say in their report that their investment at cost stands at R248 million. They have holdings in some 220 companies. Their assets, according to their balance sheets, stand at the figure of some R284 million. That is indeed of course a very brief picture of the balance sheet. I mentioned these figures not as any unfair criticism with a view to attacking the I.D.C. in any way, but simply to draw the attention of the Committee to the size of the undertaking which has been financed and is being financed by money voted by Parliament. It is doing business on a very big scale, covering a very wide field indeed. It is engaged in major concerns. We know about Sasol and Foskor. It also has interests in shipping in a big way. There is also the Atlas Aeroplane Company, which is a R30 million undertaking. They tell us in their report that they are undertaking the construction of an aluminium smelter which will cost another R34 million. They give account of banking mergers which they have effected during the year. My colleague, the hon. member for Von Brandis, referred yesterday to the fact that they have a paragraph in which they refer to the importance of the tourist industry and the fact that it is not being exploited, which would seem to indicate that they are being tempted to undertake activities in the tourist industry. Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether the Industrial Development Corporation has any plans in that direction. But, Sir, you can see the wide field of their activities. The Corporation to-day is directing this money, which has been voted by Parliament, to companies and undertakings of various sizes of different degrees of importance and many of them of national importance. The real point that I am trying to make is this: How much does Parliament know about all this? Except for Sasol and Foskor, which of course prepare their own reports, and which are Tabled in this House, we do not even know how much of these vast sums of money are invested in these various activities. For instance, the balance sheet shows that apart from the shareholding in Sasol and in Foskor, the Corporation holds shares to-day in various companies; the amount involved is R43 million, and under the general heading of “loans, debentures, other finances (secured and unsecured)”, we find an amount of R47½ million, and in respect of border industries another R28½ million. That means that under the headings of “loans, debentures, and other finances (secured and unsecured)”, the Corporation has an amount of R76 million invested, and that is all the information we have on this subject. We want to know how much of that is unsecured. I know perfectly well that you cannot expect too much detailed information in a balance sheet, and indeed I think this balance sheet is very well laid out, but I cannot agree, and I do not think that this Committee should agree, that all Parliament is called upon to do is to vote globular sums year after year for the Industrial Development Corporation—sums of money amounting now to R190 million—and then take no further interest in it, because whatever may be the theoretical position, the actual fact is that year after year Parliament has practically no opportunity of really examining in some form or other and taking the closest interest in the activities of this great Corporation. The fact is that the Corporation has gone far away from its original conception; I am not discussing the merits of that now at all, but it has gone far away from its original conception and it has become a very major instrument of Government policy. It is to-day in effect a vast Government undertaking, having a powerful, if not a controlling interest—because you need not have a 50 per cent shareholding to have a controlling interest if you are the Government—in what is a steadily increasing range of economic activities in all sectors of our economy. I want to say, and I believe the Committee will agree with me, that I think the time is long overdue when some means should be found whereby Parliament can have the opportunity of gaining a closer knowledge of the operations of this Corporation. We have a new Minister now and we know what new brooms do.

They sometimes sweep clean.

Well, we will give him the benefit of the doubt. We will assume that he is going to sweep clean. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to this question. I know from personal experience what the difficulties are. I know that this question was raised in years gone by when I was Minister of Commerce and Industries; it was raised by the Opposition which was then the Nationalist Party, and I agreed with them in principle that something ought to be done about it, but unfortunately the country thought otherwise and I had no time to come to finality on this subject. But at that time both sides of the House were agreed that something should be done about it. I know what the difficulties are but I do believe that they are not insurmountable. I do not know whether a parliamentary committee, if it really got down to it, could not investigate ways and means of arranging for Parliament to be better informed, to have the opportunity of asking intelligent questions and getting a better picture of just what is being done and how things are going. I do not know whether this matter should be referred to a parliamentary committee already established but I believe that if the hon. the Minister applied his massive brain to thinking about it, perhaps with the assistance of one or two other people, machinery could be created whereby Parliament would have the opportunity of discussing this matter of great national importance. It would be good for the Corporation; it would be good for the country and I think it would be good for Parliament. I believe that a solution could be found and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will treat this as a matter of importance and that with the assistance of his very able Deputy Minister who, as we know, is a glutton for work and who will no doubt be called in to assist him in this connection, he will render the service to the country, a service which I am sure we will all appreciate.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat asked the hon. the Minister whether he could supply this House with any additional information in regard to the activities of the Industrial Development Corporation. I do not want to discuss that; it is for the hon. the Minister to supply this House with his own views on that matter. But the hon. member also went further. He spoke about a possible commission of inquiry and he mentioned a great many things here.

No, a parliamentary committee.

The hon. member made certain remarks which to my mind correspond very closely with the statement made in the Financial Mail of 5th May. I am referring more specifically to the statements made in regard to the Industrial Development Corporation and the suspicions which were cast on the activities of this organization in the edition of the Financial Mail of 5th May. I think that that publication cast very unfair suspicion on the activities of the I.D.C. and that is why I am standing up to say something in regard to the matter. We must ask ourselves for what purpose the I.D.C. was established. It was established in the first place in order to initiate any industrial undertaking in the country; in other words, to create an undertaking itself. Its second function is to be of assistance, with guidance and advice, in the initiating of an undertaking which somebody else wants to start. It therefore has the function of covering the entire field, of initiating something itself or of helping somebody else to do so. But the hon. member said that the activities of the I.D.C. were becoming more and more extensive and that the organization was covering an ever-increasing field. The main task of the I.D.C. is, in my opinion, to be of assistance in the industrial growth in South Africa, and in the past few years it has in fact played a very great role in taking the initiative, and has done so in a way which I think can serve as an assurance to the country that as far as industrial growth was concerned it did perform a supplementary role and helped make a contribution in this field which has been of strategic interest to the country, and I think that we are grateful that it has fulfilled such a function.

But in this article suspicion is being cast in particular on what the I.D.C. may do. The I.D.C. is not being attacked in regard to certain aspects on which one would have expected it to have been attacked if there had been anything wrong with its administration. It is not being attacked on account of its inefficiency. The I.D.C. is a model of efficient administration and control of those organizations with which it has to deal, and I think that all 9t us must agree that up to now there has, in the conduct of the I.D.C., not been any reason to doubt that it has in fact acted efficiently.

Nor is it being attacked because it had perhaps acted injudiciously where it exercised control, entered a sphere or offer assistance. An attack of this nature was not made because the I.D.C. has, in the judicious investments which it has made, and with the assistance which it has offered, acted in a well-balanced way, and it has taken action in those fields where difficulties were being experienced and needs were being felt, which is also its task.

Nor is the I.D.C. being attacked because it is taking unnecessary risks. In fact, it is there to take risks, because it was established so as to be able to act where certain undertakings did not or could not act in the interests of the industrial development of the country. Now one finds it regrettable that these suspicions have been cast. I do not want to accuse the hon. member of having cast the suspicions, but I do want to say that to my mind his arguments correspond very closely with the arguments jn this public newspaper. I am aware of the fact that the I.D.C. is being attacked because it associates itself with the Government’s policy. The implication there is that the I.D.C. should actually dissociate itself from Government policy. The attack is based on the fact that it is associating itself too much with the implementation of the policy of border area development. In fact it is correct that the I.D.C. should do so. After all, what the I.D.C. has brought into existence in regard to border areas has been successful and it has made a very great contribution towards implementing an important part of the Government’s policy, and we are grateful for that. But what we are not grateful for is the fact that suspicions are being cast on the I.D.C. when it associates itself with the policy of this Government. One gets the impression that the I.D.C. would only have betn regarded with approval if it had put a spoke in the wheel as far as the implementation of the Government’s policy was concerned, and if it had been instrumental in obstructing Government policy, as we know other major bodies are trying to obstruct it. In its actions the I.D.C. has not allowed itself to be given instructions to be a lackey of the Government, but it is an instrument which handles public funds and it is doing here which any organization of this nature does in other parts of the world.

Secondly, it is being attacked because its terms of reference are too wide. It was the hon. member for Constantia who mentioned all these things. He said that they had a share in too large a variety of undertakings. Indeed, its terms of reference are wide. In terms of its establishment it is there to be of assistance in establishing industries and that is why it is its function to be as helpful as possible. But if the I.D.C. did not do so and were not to be of assistance in the establishment and the maintenance of certain industries which needed its assistance, it would not be fulfilling its function. The mere fact that it already has investments in 230 companies shows us what an important function the I.D.C. has fulfilled in the past. There are other major interests which are expanding every year. There are many of these undertakings which have a choice of either going to the I.D.C. for assistance or of obtaining assistance from other major investors and then being swallowed up by them. I think the important function which the I.D.C. has fulfilled is, inter alia that it has helped to maintain competition because it helps undertakings to continue to exist in the face of competition. It helps to maintain a variety of competitive industries and in that sense the I.D.C. plays a role in preventing the entire country from being taken over by a few large magnates, and I regard that as a very great service to the economy of the country. In that article suspicion is also cast on the I.D.C. because it is supposed to have taken minority shares in too many of these businesses. Now I cannot understand how these two things can be reconciled, because it is being reproached on the one hand for helping too many small businesses with minority shares, and on the other hand it is being reproached for obtaining too great a share in certain businesses. But the fact remains that there is a reason why it takes minority shares in certain businesses and that is because, as I said just now, those people have a choice of either going to the I.D.C. for assistance or of going to certain other bodies who help them in such a way that they lose control. The I.D.C. gives assistance in such a way that an entrepreneur can retain his independence. [Time expired.]

I want to support what the hon. member for Constantia has said in regard to the I.D.C. and, with deference to the previous speaker, I do not think that the purpose of the hon. member for Constantia’s speech was to throw suspicion on the I.D.C. We are all well aware of the work that the I.D.C. has done and the amount of technical skill it has brought to bear in the various companies and the amount of financial and managerial skill and know-how they have been able to give to the companies they assisted. But the hon. member for Constantia was pleading for an opportunity of having a better examination of what the I.D.C. is doing. The hon. member who has just spoken, I am sure, is as capable as most people in this House of reading a balance sheet, and he will see that the balance sheet of the I.D.C. shows, under the item “Shares”, R37,210,043, but the heading is “Section 3 (6) Cost, less provision for diminution in value”. So it is quite clear that the I.D.C. has invested in some companies and has had to provide for a diminution in value; in other words, that they made some bad investments. We do not know how much it is, we do not know how much we have had to write off. So, when the hon. member suggests that all is well with the I.D.C. and all is well with the investments they have made, I think he has some special knowledge which the rest of us do not have. And if he has some special knowledge then we think that we should be entitled to it. Or, Sir, he is just chancing his arm. Because we only have the information contained in the balance sheet. If the I.D.C. is making investments I suggest that we should have more information than is before us now. We have here an item “Shares”. I think that those shares could be split up into shares in those companies where the I.D.C. has a controlling interest—that is, more than 50 per cent interest—and companies where they have more than 40 per cent interest, more than 30 per cent interest, and so on. We respect the privacy of company business and therefore it would not be necessary to give the companies’ names. That would give us an indication. Perhaps those shares could be further divided into those in respect of which there is a stock exchange quotation and those in respect of which there is no stock exchange quotation. One would then have a better idea of how these funds are invested.

The hon. member also suggested that it is a successful organization. If one refers to the profit and loss account one will find that last year the profits were R3,226,000, a return on the total shareholders’ funds of R172 million plus general reserve and unappropriated profit, of barely three per cent. Hardly a highly successful company! At the same time one realizes that in many cases the investments made are made by the I.D.C. as the agents of the Government. We do not quarrel when the I.D.C. is performing its true function, which is to help an industry to get onto its feet and to develop industry in the country. We have no quarrel with that, so long as the Minister recognizes that this is a free enterprise country. Some industrialists feel that there is almost a measure of coercion, if not very strong persuasion, on them to get the I.D.C. into their organization. They use the old adage, “If you can’t beat them, then join them.” They feel that if approaches are made to the I.D.C. for the corporation to assist them or to lend them funds with the promise of border industry benefits or favoured company treatment, then pressure is being brought to bear on them to join up with the I.D.C. I do not think that when we talk of efficiency the I.D.C. has covered itself with glory in respect of the investment made in the Cyril Lord organization. Although we cannot discuss that organization in detail, it is quite clear that the I.D.C. has made a substantial investment in the textile industry, and I think that we should like to know, at some time or other, whether the criticism in that respect is well-founded. There was recently a report made by a certain leading company criticizing the present protective policy of the Government. We on this side of the House agree that industry must be protected. However, this company report stated the following—

I do not know whether the Minister agrees with that, but the I.D.C., in the opinion of some people in the textile industry, has gone in too far and made investments which they regard as not being in the best interests of either country or the industry as a whole. We find the I.D.C. going in for ventures such as the mutual funds. Was it necessary for the I.D.C. to go into that organization?

Yes.

I doubt very much whether the corporation should invest in mutual funds, particularly where it is operating with company funds. Is there not a danger that the I.D.C. might be inclined to ensure that the mutual funds invest particularly in those organizations where the corporation itself has an interest? If that is the case, it could be an unhealthy development.

The I.D.C. has been used particularly as the agent for the Government in the development of border industries. I should like to know from the Minister whether the I.D.C., in the development of border industries, is under his control or whether the corporation has a free hand. Is it just used as a service department? Other service departments, such as the Railways. the Post Office, and so on, come before this House during the Committee Stage and we have the opportunity to criticize. We certainly do not have the opportunity to criticize the development of border industries. The I.D.C. report has the following to say on border industries investments—

We are getting used to these new words, the new phraseology. A short time ago it was “border industry”; now it is called “decentralization”; the current phrase is “growth points”. When the I.D.C. goes to these growth points, is it as a result of Cabinet policy, or does the I.D.C. make an economic survey and then start these growth points as a result of sound economic reasons? We find the following words in a paragraph where the I.D.C. deals with tea production—

I should like to know from the Minister whether he agrees with those very fine sentiments of the I.D.C. I certainly agree with them. But what I want to know is this: Why does the I.D.C. not carry out its very excellent advice? We find that in one organization where the I.D.C. has built factories it has built houses and provided factory services, but there is not a single Bantu house built. Yet the report says quite clearly that housing is essential—“adequate housing, schools, hospitals and other social benefits” are essential if a high labour turnover is to be avoided.

Now I want to suggest that if the I.D.C. plans an area, he factory, the power, water and transport resources, as well as white housing resources, and yet does nothing about Bantu labour resources, then they are going to have a high labour turnover factor. With a high labour turnover factor they are going to have increased costs. With increased costs they are going to have inefficiency, unless the high cost is pushed on to the public in the form of higher prices. That is what is happening in one of the principal areas in which the I.D.C. takes a certain amount of pride. The argument may be used by the Minister that in this particular case the I.D.C.—and here I am referring to Hammarsdale, as the Minister probably knows—was not concerned with the planning of Bantu housing but that that was the responsibility of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Surely, if this is going to be properly planned, there should be co-ordination of services? If one is going to plan an area, if one plans the services, the power, the water, the lighting, the housing and the factory, one must set about it in a realistic manner. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has followed the example of his colleague in regard to the suspicion which is being cast on and the attacks which are being made on the I.D.C. I think that the hon. member for Soutpansberg not only replied adequately to the hon. member for Constantia he also replied in advance to the arguments and suspicions which were raised by the hon. member who has just spoken. What their entire argument amounts to is that they do not want the I.D.C. to play any part in the complex of industrial industries and their development. That is why they are saying that it is an instrument of Government policy to carry out Government policy. If it had been, I think it would have been a very good thing. There is nothing further to say about the entire situation except to consider the few questions which the hon. member put to the hon. the Minister, which are of an administrative nature.

The statement made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon in regard to a third Iscor has put us all, and I think the entire country as well, in a good mood for the discussion of this Vote to-day. That is why I want to speak in particular to-day about the wonderful and rapid development of industries in South Africa. I can no longer believe it to-day when I recall how I pleaded in 1937, and was laughed at, for a situation such as the one we have in South Africa to-day. In those years every possible prejudice was brought to bear against industrial development in South Africa. I never thought I would live to see the day when industries in South Africa could develop to such an extent, I am not saying as a result of my pleas, but I am one of the persons who made those pleas. I never thought that they would develop so rapidly that I would one day, as I am doing to-day, have to ask this Government to turn on the brake a little at certain points.

Permit me to give a brief sketch of how industries in South Africa have developed since 1946. You need not be afraid that I will tire you with a lot of figures. In 1946 the total output of the industries in South Africa was R900 million. To-day it is R6,000 million. During one half only of 1965 industries increased by 17 per cent. Between 1946 and the present the total number of factories has increased from 11,370 to 20,000. Employees have increased during the same period from less than 500,000 to 1,250,000. This is truly a wonderful growth, unequalled probably in our time and in the history of the entire world, and it has been accomplished despite the fact that we are constantly being informed that the Government’s policy is of such a nature that industries cannot develop.

I want to point out a few aspects which have been the direct result of the Government’s policy and which have been the direct cause of this wonderful development in South Africa. The first is, to use an old term, the protective policy. South Africa has developed in terms of the protective policy and a climate was created which made it more attractive for any industry than was the case in any other place in the world. I repeat again that this was done in spite of the fact that we have continuously been accused that the Government’s policy was impeding the development of industries. In addition to the fact that the Government has granted in our annual Estimates a concession of 20c investment allowance for new industries we also find that approximately 15 per cent is being allowed as an initial concession for taxes. In addition we have the cheapest power supply in the world. We also have the most efficient industrial legislation in the entire world, which has brought about industrial peace in this country. But this long recital will be useless if one does not mention the most important thing of all, and that is the establishment of Iscor. Without the coming into being and growth of Iscor this development which we are experiencing to-day would have been absolutely impossible. Iscor is the stem from which all those branches of the industries have been able to develop. Without it they could never have grown. One should really ask why our friends on the opposite side fought the inception of Iscor tooth and nail?

Since I am discussing this situation, i.e. the fact that we have experienced this wonderful industrial development, I want to make a strange kind of plea to-day. I want to say that the protective policy is functioning very efficiently. Because the protective policy has functioned so effectively I think I shall appropriate for myself the right to-day to ask the Government whether it is not time now—and this is also a world-wide tendency—for us to reconsider the tariffs to some extent because in South Africa there are industries and industries. There are industries who are well aware and appreciative of the fact that they owe their origin and growth to the Government policy and the protection which they enjoyed. There are also many who do not realize this. There are many who are making use of the protection but who are not very taken up with it and want to abuse it a little in this sense that in certain instances there are factories which have grown up under the protective policy of the Government and who are aware that as far as they are concerned competition is not very strong but who want to load our consumers with unnecessarily high costs.

It is in that respect that I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister does not think that the time has come for us to reconsider this matter as a whole. I think I can justifiably state that our industries in South Africa are so strong and healthy to-day that they are to a large extent capable of standing on their own feet. I want to mention an example now. This gives me the reason to advocate what I have just stated. In 1925 when objections were raised to the protection of the footwear industry in this country it was said by the overseas industrialists, through the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Mines here in South Africa, that we were burdening the consumer in this country with unnecessarily high costs for the sake of a useless article, i.e. shoes. Then we were the mouse. The British manufacturer of footwear was the lion, but what do we find to-day? Now we are the lion and they are the mouse. I am merely mentioning this industry as an example. If we had the time I could have elaborated for hours on this topic. In many cases industries in South Africa are so strong to-day that it is no longer necessary to protect them with those tariff walls. The tariff walls can now be reconsidered in certain respects so that the industrialist may also concentrate on the fact and become aware that he is there for the sake of the country and the population, and that the population is not there for his sake. I want to add the following: This tremendous development which we have experienced, and to which I have referred, i.e. 17 per cent during six months in 1965, has contributed largely to the situation which we term inflation in this country to-day. In other words, the industries have developed so rapidly that the normal sources of strength of the population could not keep pace with it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will agree with that hon. member when he says that the shoe industry needs no protection. I do not think that the Minister will agree with him and I do not think that the shoe industry will agree with him.

I was dealing with the question of development at Hammarsdale, and I should like to refer the Minister to a report, which was tabled on 2nd May, by the Minister, by the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industry and the Development of Border Areas. The report says:

It goes on to say that for these reasons the project was launched at Rosslyn and Hammarsdale. It was in the orbit of accepted development, while it served to stem the influx of Bantu to the large metropolitan areas. At the same time it contributed towards the development of the Bantu homelands. I wonder if the Minister really wants us to take that seriously. I suggest that before he takes that very seriously, he must go to Hammarsdale and find out for himself how many of the Bantu in the factories of Hammarsdale belong to that Hammarsdale area. He must find out how many of them are Bantu from that area and live in the homelands, how many of them go to Durban at the weekends and stay at Kwa Mashu, how many go to Pietermaritzburg at the weekends, or somewhere else. [Interjections.] I shall come to that point. The whole idea of border industries is to establish industries at the borders so that people who live on the borders can work in those industries. My submission is that those people do not live there.

Mr. J. P. C. LE ROUX They “can”, not “shall” work there.

This report goes on, referring to Hammarsdale, and says that during a period of 6½ years, the following has been achieved: 12 factories have already been established or are under construction. A further 90 acres have been purchased during 1966, and the land is already fully occupied. The I.D.C. has already invested R9.9 million. The 12 factories will employ 5,400 persons, of whom 5,000 will be Bantu. The first stage of the water and sewage scheme will cost R700,000, a double 88,000 volt high tension power line has been erected by Escom at a cost of R400,000. The Department of Bantu Administration has purchased land for the laying out of Bantu townships of 7,000 houses. Not one single house has been built for Bantu. Yet the factory area has been developed during the last 6½ years. During that period the province has been asked to build a road costing R120,000. Eighty-eight houses for Whites have been built at a cost of R849,000, namely roughly R10,000 per house. That is in the Hammarsdale area, and yet not a single house for the Bantu has been built. The Bantu are living in slums. My submission is that if the I.D.C. was responsible for this planning, the I.D.C. has handled the job badly. If the I.D.C. was only concerned with planning, excluding Bantu housing, the Government has failed in that it should have co-ordinated Government services. They have planned the factories and the European housing but no plans whatsoever have been made for Bantu housing, and this has resulted in slums and filth which exists in the Bantu area to-day. If the Government wants to use the I.D.C. as an agency for developing an area, surely it will be good business to let the I.D.C. take control of all the services. The I.D.C. has the organization. In my view, proper planning would make provision for the building of houses, for the building of the factory, and for the other services, so that they can all be interlocked and integrated so that the unit can perform efficiently. No wonder there is a high labour turnover in that area. The reason is that people have no secure shelter. When there is a high labour turnover factor, there is a higher cost for the retraining of people. Higher labour costs result in higher costs for the products, and growing inefficiency. There is no settled, stable labour population in the Hammarsdale area and there will not be until there is adequate Bantu housing. I do not know what the position is in regard to Rosslyn or the other areas. I submit that if the Minister is going to use the I.D.C. as an agency for providing all the facilities for the border areas, all the services should be co-ordinated. The factories, the housing, the water, the power and the other resources necessary will then all make a complete industrial unit.

The I.D.C. could not have built houses there either, because the land did not belong to them.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that the land did not belong to them. To invest R10 million before the whole scheme is properly organized is bad planning. That is my point. If they knew that they could not get the land for the Bantu housing, they should not have gone on with the scheme. They should have waited until they had the land. There has been dilly-dallying in the Minister’s Department. We shall deal with that Minister later on when we come to him. He is not taking par: in this debate, so we shall not worry about his interjections.

We come to another matter in connection with the I.D.C. A year or two ago the Minister of Economic Affairs came to this House and told us that an organization called Klipfontein Organic Products should not be a Government-owned concern. He advised the House to allow the Government to sell it to a private concern. The Minister put his case forward and the House agreed that this organization should be sold to a private concern. The Minister said that it was Government policy and he gave us powerful reasons for his suggestion that it should no long belong to the Government. Now what do we find? We find that the I.D.C. has repudiated the Minister’s policy. The I.D.C. has now entered into an agreement with this organization and other organizations and formed a new chemical organization called Sentrachem. Is that in accordance with the Minister’s policy? If it is in accordance with the Minister’s policy, why did the Minister tell us in the first place that it was essential to sell this company? The Government cannot blow hot and cold when it suits them. The Government suggests to us that we must vote these funds for I.D.C. The hon. member for Soutpansberg suggested that because we have criticized the Minister’s policy, we are creating suspicion about I.D.C. That argument is unsound. If this organization is going to use over R200 million of public money and it is going to make investments in companies, and in some cases have wholly owned subsidiaries, and it will make no declaration on the balance sheet that they own wholly owned subsidiaries, and they make no indication on the balance sheet to what extent they hold complete control and to what extent they hold minority control, and they make no indication on their balance sheet to what extent their shares are quoted, then the sooner the Minister accepts the suggestion of the hon. member for Constantia, the better. That is that there should be a parliamentary committee which should have the opportunity of seeing whether there is some way in which we can have better parliamentary control than we have to-day. I am quite certain that although the Minister is responsible for the appointment of the directors of I.D.C., this money-spending organization, and in many cases efficient managerial organization, I do suggest that the Minister is to a large extent in the dark. There is a danger that this organization can go on empire building. We could have a bit of Parkinson’s law applied at a time when the Government itself is asking people to clamp down on development. I suggest that we have made a case for a more thorough examination of I.D.C. Recognizing the good work that it has done, the efficient technical service it has given to industry, the efficient managerial advice it has given to industry, and all the encouragement they have given in past years, there is still a case for more control by Parliament than exists at present.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Constantia was discussing the I.D.C., I listened appreciatively because his approach to the question of the Corporation was a reasonable, positive one. I did not get the impression that he had any ulterior motives. I want to thank him for the way in which he raised this matter. But after the hon. member for Pinetown began to speak at became clear to me that the United Party, to my regret, were launching a major attack on the I.D.C. to-day. It began with completely innocent questions and statements and became progressively worse, and they must not take it amiss of us if we confirm and repeat that there is a very close correspondence between the attack which those hon. members have made on the I.D.C. and the bitter attack made on the I.D.C. by the Financial Mail. Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the Opposition have the habit of coming up for that publication, but if one considers where it attacks and how it attacks then I say that this attack is nothing less than a venomous attack, and I shall demonstrate later on how wrong they are.

The I.D.C. was established by the United Party. The objectives of the I.D.C. are contained in the I.D.C. Act of 1940. and those objectives were expanded in 1942 by that side of the House, and since that time the Act, as far as the extent of the purview of the I.D.C. is concerned, has never again been altered. How then can that side of the House maintain that the I.D.C. is going beyond its purview; that it is going much further than was originally provided? The I.D.C. is not exceeding its purview, because that would be illegal. It is acting within the framework of its purview which was stipulated by that side of the House, and this side of the House has not yet found it necessary to change it.

Mr. Chairman, in addition it has been said here that the I.D.C. should furnish more information. In the balance sheet of the I.D.C. we find a full statement of all the avenues in which it has invested; there is a full statement here of every sector in which the I.D.C. invests, as well as the number of undertakings and the amounts. I want to ask them what other private body furnishes all this information with which the I.D.C. furnishes them?

There was also some discussion here of the investments made by the I.D.C., and the Opposition intimated that the I.D.C. should indicate what amounts it is investing in the various undertakings in which it exercises control and in what cases its share-holding is between 40 per cent and 50 per cent, etc., etc. Mr. Chairman, that is a ridiculous statement. Mention to me one single undertaking in the country which furnishes all those details. The Opposition wants more information. Sir, the I.D.C. cannot furnish all these details in one annual report; it is impossible because it is too large an undertaking; it has very wide ramifications. In all respects the I.D.C. has fulfilled its original purpose. When the then United Party Minister of Commerce and Industry introduced the I.D.C. Bill he described the establishment of the I.D.C. as a “great plan”. It is a great plan, and now that the great plan is being carried out by the I.D.C. they attack it. Is that fair? Sir, that criticism was unworthy of that publication. I have said that there was a very close correspondence between the attack from that side of the House on the I.D.C. and the attack made by this newspaper. They refer here to Anglo-American. Mr. Chairman, I have appreciation for the contribution which Anglo-American has made to the building up of this country. That side of the House and that newspaper have done Anglo-American a disservice by linking the attack on the I.D.C. in this way with Anglo-American. But there is more to it than meets the eye. Mention was made here of K.O.P. and Centrachem. The I.D.C. did something. What was it? Inter alia, it fulfilled one of its chief functions which is to bring about rationalization in the industry, but now they are suddenly maintaining that African Explosives has had to abandon certain plans as a result of that rationalization. To whom does African Explosives belong? Mr. Chairman, you know to whom it belongs. In this case I.D.C., in conjunction with other private financial bodies, b ought about an extremely important rationalization process in the interests of the country, but now that such an institution is apparently going to compete with another industry, the I.D.C. is suddenly doing the wrong thing. To me it appears very much to be a protection of the interests of another industry, protection which this other group does not need because they are powerful and strong enough to stand on their own feet.

They remain the minion of Hoggenheimer.

It has been said that the I.D.C. plays an important role in the implementation of Government policy. What is wrong with that? When that side of the House was in power, did not the I.D.C. also carry out their policy? The I.D.C. made a start with industrial decentralization, and that side of the House boasts that industrial decentralization is their policy. It was one of the most important things which the I.D.C. did in the years when that party was still in government. It established certain decentralized industries, and just as was the case then the I.D.C. is at present implementing Government policy, and I maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Mr. Chairman, it has even been said that the I.D.C. is trying to exert pressure in order to acquire certain shares. Do you know what the actual position is? The demand for loans is so great that the I.D.C. can only approve a very limited number of those applications, and even the details for quite a number of years are furnished in this report. In 1966, for example, there were 916 applications; 286 applications were investigated and 97 applications were approved. It is not for the I.D.C. to look for investments, nor do they do so, but the I.D.C., as a result of its objective actions, as a result of its expert knowledge, is one of the most important, one of the most popular sources to which industry turns in order to acquire knowledge, guidance and capital, and I say that it is not deserving of criticism. The contrary is true; it is deserving of great praise.

In addition, the hon. member for Pinetown said that border areas were now being called industrial decentralization. What is wrong with that? The I.D.C. is not only developing areas to-day which are bordering on Bantu areas; it is developing other areas as well—Coloured areas and Indian areas. As the I.D.C. developed the concept became broader and broader. Is it wrong under these circumstances to come forward with the broader concept of industrial decentralization? In addition, the development of border areas is one of the most important means of achieving industrial decentralization in this country.

Mention was also made of the housing shortage at Hammarsdale. We admit that there is a shortage of housing for Bantu. There were special problems. Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side of the House have stated time and again that the policy of border area development would be a failure, and one of the reasons why a shortage of housing arose was because this border area is, in fact, developing more rapidly than was foreseen. We admit it, but it only goes to prove how rapidly border area development has taken place. The hon. the Minister informed me a while ago that the Department had certain problems in this area in regard to properties, problems which they are now solving by means of expropriation. [Time limit.]

I regret that I cannot follow up on a United Party speaker to whom I can display the courtesy of replying to his argument, but since I cannot do that, it is my intention to request the attention of the hon. the Minister in regard to another matter. But before I come to that I just want to associate myself with what the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, said, i.e. that we regard it as being a disservice to bodies such as Anglo American and African Explosives to drag in the I.D.C. here. I just want to mention a single example to show how the I.D.C. would prefer to play a supplementary role rather than to compete with existing bodies. I am referring here to a very rapidly developing fertiliser industry in South Africa. For many years African Explosives have in fact supplied—and are at present engaged on a large scale expansion in order to continue supplying —the needs for nitro-fertilisers, but it has up to now done nothing in regard to the supply of the equally great need for phosphate fertilisers. The I.D.C. and Centrachem is now engaged on supplying that great need for phosphate fertilisers, and these two bodies together, Centrachem on the one hand and African Explosives on the other, will co-operate in order to meet the great need for fertiliser of the entire farming population of South Africa. I want to repeat therefore that it is by no means in this instance a case of opposition or competition, but a case of co-operation in the interests of the whole of South Africa.

But in the short time at my disposal I want to request the hon. the Minister’s attention in regard to a very important situation which has now arisen since Britain, through its Government and Mr. Wilson, decided last Wednesday evening to apply for entry to the Euromart. Until very recently most of us believed that Britain would not go so far as to make application, because it was calculated that it would cost too much. I am merely mentioning one single consideration. British interests calculated that the cost of living, particularly as far as food prices are concerned, will increase in Britain by as much as R685 per year, if Britain were to enter the Euromart. We therefore had reason up to a few months ago, to believe that Britain could not afford to apply for membership. But last Wednesday evening the British Parliament resolved with a very large majority to apply for membership of E.C.M., and now a new situation has arisen for us, one to which we shall have to give very thorough attention.

You will remember. Sir, that when Mr. Macmillan’s Government applied in August 1961 for membership, he immediately made it clear that he hoped it would be possible to enter the E.C.M. without endangering the agricultural interests of Britain and the Commonwealth. That undertaking which he gave has since been repeated time and again by the present British Government, but now Mr. Wilson has made it clear that he is asking for membership unconditionally, and that creates a new situation for us in South Africa as far as agriculture is concerned, one which we will have to consider very carefully, and it affects the deciduous fruit industry, the citrus industry and the canning industry in particular, and to a lesser extent, the wine industry of the Western Cape. Now we are very grateful to learn that our Government has not been fast asleep and that months ago already it sent special officials to Geneva to make a study there what the implications for South Africa will be when Britain enters the Common-market. But you will allow me. Sir, to submit a few humble suggestions for the consideration of the Minister.

I do not think it has ever been stated very strongly that particularly as far as our fresh fruit industry is concerned there are these considerations which ought to make it possible for us to negotiate for favourable conditions from E.C.M. I want to say at once that I do not believe that we dare ask for any concessions from the E.C.M. through Britain, because Britain has no hope of entering E.C.M. once it begins to stipulate conditions. For that reason we cannot put forward conditions through Britain or negotiate for concessions for our agricultural industry. But I see no reason why we should not negotiate directly with the E.C.M. countries in order to obtain those concessions. At the moment import duties on peaches in the E.C.M. countries is 22 per cent, on grapes it is 18 per cent, and on apples and pears it is 8 per cent and 9 per cent respectively. Now I cannot see any reason for there being such a heavy import duty on grapes, because our season does not clash with the European season. Our production cannot prejudice the production of the E.C.M. countries because our seasons do not clash. In order to prove this I want to furnish a few figures as far as grapes imports into Britain are concerned. In 1966, during the months February to June, 3,433,000 cases of grapes were imported into Britain from South Africa, and during the same period only 467,000 cases were imported from the rest of the countries in the world. That proves my statement that South Africa will never compete with E.C.M. countries as far as the deciduous fruits are concerned. That is why I want to request very earnestly that our hon. the Minister and his Department should negotiate on this basis with E.C.M. in order to prove in that way that they will suffer no losses when our products are imported free of custom duties by the E.C.M. countries, including Britain. On that basis we ought to receive very favourable conditions, not through Britain but directly from the Euromart countries. I also want to point out that our canning industry in particular will be very hard hit. Here I am also grateful to learn that there are officials of the Department who are already making a study of this matter and I believe that a solution will be found so that the canning industry of the Western Cape and the entire Republic will not suffer when Britain enters the Commonmarket. Problems await us as far as our wine industry is concerned too, because the preference of R1 per gallon on our wines in Britain will of course elapse. And what is more, the E.C.M. countries, which are all wine producing countries, or at least most of them are, will of course try to keep our wines out. We are also asking the Minister very courteously here to make a thorough study of this matter. [Time limit.]

I think the House is indebted to the hon. member for Paarl for having raised the question of South Africa’s position and the E.E.C., particularly now that Britain has decided to make application to join that body. I think we have time on our side to some extent, for I do not believe, from the information I have been able to glean, that the entry of Britain into the E.E.C. will be immediate. It will probably take anything from three to four years. But there is no doubt that if Britain is accepted into the E.E.C. the pattern of our exports may have to change considerably. Therefore I should like to ask the Minister this afternoon to tell us what progress we are making on the export front, what we have achieved, what our plans for the immediate future are and what the hon. the Minister hopes to achieve. I should like to hear from him, particularly in relation to what we call manufactured goods. Statistical information can be very misleading. If we look at a report in The Star of the 10th of May of this year, we see that our exports for the first three months of this year increased from R256 million to R313 million. In the breakdown of the increases we see that food and live animals have gone up from R51 million to R60 million, whilst crude materials inedible, except fuels, have dropped from R90 million to R88 million. Other fuels are about the same. The big increase is in “manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials” where the increase is from R81 million to R117.1 million. This gives a picture of our factories bursting at the seams with goods being made ready for export. But what are the real facts? If we go to the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics and examine what “manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials” really means, we find that there are very few manufactured goods included in this heading, because they consist primarily of diamonds, rough and uncut, cut and polished, metals and metal manufactures. Included are such things as the alloys which we are now manufacturing and exporting overseas. The bulk of the increase in our exports under the heading “Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials” certainly does not apply to what we think of when we talk of manufactured goods which are normally the product of our ordinary factories. I want to say quite frankly that from the visits which I have been fortunate to make abroad and during which I had discussions with our own people abroad and other businessmen abroad, it is quite clear that there is yet much to be achieved. Our commercial representation certainly requires strengthening and further extension. In many of our embassies overseas we have only one commercial attaché and he is assisted by local people. Their areas are vast—I have said this in the House before, but I have to repeat it again. A commercial attaché in one capital can be responsible for looking after the commercial interests of South Africa in three or four countries covering an enormous territory and almost an impossible task to perform. In other places we have no representation at all. I happened to spend a few days in Iran last year. Now, Iran is a country that once was relatively poor but which is now booming and prospering. Iran has no barriers in so far as the countries from which it will import are concerned. It is not like some of the countries to the north where it is difficult for us to export to: We can export freely to Iran. They have currency today as a result of the terrific extension of their oil-wells and their oil product manufactures—their petro-chemical industries. But we are not represented there. I know that a survey has been done there. But I had occasion to talk to people in Iran who import goods from South Africa, in fact from all over the world. There is a market there for us. I said before, and I say again, that exporting is long-term business. One does not make preparations today and expect to find markets to-morrow: One has to plan these things far ahead. We have to continue with the strengthening of our export services, and particularly must they be backed more forcibly from head office, from South Africa. I do not think that we in South Africa are supporting sufficiently those in the field.

Another matter which is somewhat disturbing is the position regarding the department and SAFTO. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the association to-day is between the export section of the Department of Commerce and Industries and SAFTO. Because, Sir, some strange things happened. I was visiting in one country and a SAFTO representative who, among others, is touring fairly extensively at the moment, was visiting the same country, and his only contact with the Minister’s representative in this particular country is that he is called to pay his respects. What the SAFTO representative did thereafter the Department of Commerce and Industries through the commercial ataché in that country knew nothing about: They were working in two entirely separate channels. Well, this is obviously not good enough. We contribute a large sum of money to SAFTO every year; I think it is R100,000. SAFTO and the department have got to be so integrated, that they are not duplicating the work but working in co-operation and the one is complementing the other.

Now, one of the mistakes that we have made in the past—and I do not say this is the department’s responsibility direct as it is more probably the responsibility of SAFTO —is the appointment of agents in situ. It is the agent abroad, the man who is going to sell our products, the man who is going to make a profit out of our products, who can be most useful to us. Because profit is always a motive. If we can see that South African representation is strengthened in the countries abroad by nationals of those countries then I think that we will start to make progress. Because we have a lot to do on this side. I think that we have a lot of persuasion to do among industry in this country because there is no doubt that in many inquiries about South African products emanating from abroad and finding their way to this country, industry is not playing its part in endeavouring to fulfil the orders. In some cases one cannot get a quotation at all. Where a quotation is for a long period and a vast quantity of goods then the difficulty becomes more great. It seems to be difficult for an agent abroad to ask a South African supplier to enter into a five-year contract and supply a large quantity of a particular commodity over a long period—they seem to hedge from it.

Now, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not make more use of his export trade advisory committee for this particular aspect of our problem, because the committee does not seem to be doing very much. It seems to meet once a year, and as the Minister told me in reply to a question, “It only meets when matters of special importance arise, or if any of the represented organizations request a special meeting.” I think that the Minister’s export trade advisory committee should be used by him to try and get local industry to fulfil potential export orders, that they should use their influence, and I think that the Minister will find that they can be helpful.

There is another problem with which we are going to be faced, and that is the question of the Kennedy Round. As the Minister knows, the U.S.A. has until the 15th of this month only, to complete its negotiations, because, in terms of the authority which the UN delegation has from its own “parliament”, they have to complete and sign the agreement by the 30th June. Therefore it seems that these negotiations are perhaps going to be concluded within the next few days. It does seem from the latest reports that some progress is being made. The Minister’s predecessor told us that we had submitted our offers to G.A.T.T. in connection with the Kennedy Round, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made and what problems are likely to arise as a result of these negotiations where an agreement must be signed by the 30th of next month and negotiations must be concluded by the 15th of this month. [Time expired.] *Dr. A. J. VISSER: Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to complete my argument. Hon. members opposite made further reference to and indirectly tackled the I.D.C. about its participation in the so-called growth funds. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that these growth funds at present form an extremely important part of our financial organizational structure in South Africa? They fulfil two needs in particular. The one is that they offer the ordinary and the small investor the opportunity of making his investments through expert financial institutions. We see to-day that long-term investments in good shares are very good investments, particularly in view of the decreasing value of money. The growth funds at present are an expert channel through which the small investor is able to make his contribution and is able to invest in the shares of our country. The second point is this. If one wants a sound industrial structure and wants to ensure stability, it is essential for one to have a high degree of stability on the stock exchange. One gets, inter alia, a high degree of stability when institutional investors contribute a generous share to those particular investments because the institutional investor, unlike the man in the street, generally is an expert. In this connection too these growth funds play a very important role. In this connection the I.D.C., in co-operation with other financial institutions, has taken the lead. The I.D.C. was the first to enter this field in co-operation with other financial institutions. That has been crowned with so much success that South Africa is at present one of the leading countries in this field. I want to quote to you what the Business Times of the Sunday Times of 5th March, 1967, said in this regard—

This is what this financial publication thinks of this matter. It has become a very important part of our financial institutional structure and it is making an appreciable contribution to the stability of our trade and industry. Mention was made of, inter alia, Cyril Lord and the question was asked whether that was a good investment. Do you know. Mr. Chairman, that I can mention you two such recent examples where the I.D.C. pointed out the need for such an industry in South Africa. For example, the other was the synthetic industry. After it had pointed out this need and after it had entered the field directly in the case of poplin, something in which no-one initially wanted to participate, several other undertakings entered the same field. Do you know why. Sir? Because they saw that as a sign of confidence in that field. In this respect, namely, as a creator of confidence and to indicate fields which have not yet been entered, the I.D.C., in co-operation with other institutions and in other cases on its own, is rendering a major service to industry in our country.

The question of the creation of points of growth was raised. That is the normal way in which one sets about developing the so-called backward areas of a country. Other countries are doing so. Other countries have ascertained that that is the best way of doing so. If one, in developing the backward areas of a country, starts undertakings just everywhere, the chances of success are much less than when one finds well-chosen points of growth and concentrates on them. Apart from the fact that that is essential, it is good business. It is good economics. To do that in any other way would be stupid. If the United Party thinks that to do it in any other way is the right direction to take, its idea is stupid.

In conclusion I want to deal with another aspect concerning the I.D.C. which was raised. If, in respect of the I.D.C., it was the intention that it should reveal its internal workings, as the opposite side of this House requested, then they could have caused that work to be done by a division of the Department of Commerce and Industries. One has. for example, the forestry plantations and the sawmills which form part of the Department of Forestry. It is not necessary to establish a company for that purpose. It is not necessary to pass a new Act for that purpose. Why was a special Act passed for the establishment of the I.D.C.? It was precisely for the reason that the I.D.C. would not have been able to perform its functions properly if it had to operate in any other way. If the United Party at that time wanted the internal workings of the I.D.C. to be revealed, it could have made provision for such a method in the Act. Then this “ambitious plan”, as the then Minister called it, would not have been able to become a grand idea and a grand institution. In the case of private industries and institutions business is not carried on by revealing everything. That is not business. Certain things may be revealed. The I.D.C. in fact reveals them. If that side of this House wants to nut further questions to the Minister—not with regard to where it makes all its investments because that would be wrong—that side of this House may put the necessary questions to the hon. the Minister. But they do not do so. They attack the I.D.C. in this House without having obtained information. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister would be prepared to give that side of this House any information, if they were to ask for it and which, if it were revealed, would not be to the detriment of the I.D.C.

I want to conclude. The misgiving which exists that the I.D.C. is becoming too large and that it is bringing competition for other institutions was also expressed at the time of the establishment of the I.D.C. Do you know, Sir, what the reply of the then United Party Minister of Commerce and Industries, the late Mr. Mushet. was? He said—

I should like to put this recipe and this point of view to that side of this House. One of their own former Ministers subscribed to it. It will be in the interests of the I.D.C. and in the interests of the industrial development of our country. If the United Party in its approach to these matters acts as positively as the hon. member for Constantia did—but which the hon. member for Pinetown subsequently destroyed— it will also be moving in the right direction and in the footsteps of one of its predecessors.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time since coming to this House I have no axe to grind with the hon. member for Parktown to-day. He approached his case with calm and dignity. I think that he made out a number of cases which ought to be given attention. As regards the pattern of our exports when England joins Euromart. I do not believe that we need concern ourselves unduly. I believe that the ingenuity and knowledge of our exporters and producers of deciduous fruit and canned fruits will carry us over that problem. As regards our commercial representation abroad I believe that that is a matter for which there is a great deal to be said. I want to accept that our commercial representation abroad will be strengthened considerably in due course as and when manpower and capital become available. As regards Safto and the Kennedy Round. I believe that the hon. the Minister will provide the hon. member for Parktown with a conclusive reply. I am really on my feet to convey my congratulations to our new Minister in the new portfolio which he occupies and to ensure him of our full co-operation and support.

However, another reason why I am on my feet is to congratulate the I.D.C. and in particular the Small Industries Division, on their achievements over the past number of years. This Small Industries Division was established in November. 1962. and up to June. 1966, i.e. in less than four years. it had driven financial assistance amounting to R1,849,870 to 93 undertakings—just under R20,000 per applicant. These figures indicate that the assistance has been slight. I nevertheless regard this form of assistance as being very important, particularly in view of the fact that it enables small entrepreneurs to become established in that sphere of industry for which each entrepreneur is suited. If ingenuity, courage, perseverance, drive, determination and vision am essential characteristics in an industrialist, the people of South Africa are pre-eminently suitable to enter the industrial field. This statement of mine is proved by the present as well as the past. It is common knowledge—as a matter of fact, the hon. member for Krugersdorp effectively highlighted that here this afternoon— what feats the South African nation has already achieved in the field of industry over the past 20 or 30 years and how our economy, which used to be based on agriculture alone, has soared like a rocket and has grown into an industrial giant. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister and his Department to give consideration to the further extension of this Small Industries Division of the I.D.C. so that we may be able to establish more of these small industries. It is common knowledge that the South African economy is one of the most capitalistic economies in the world. In South Africa the share of the State in our economy is only 12.7 per cent, as against 13.1 per cent in Canada, 14.6 per cent in Western Germany, 15.7 per cent in the U.S.A., 19.4 per cent in Belgium. 22.4 per cent in France and more than 31 per cent in Britain. Private entrepreneurs in South Africa produce more than 90 per cent of our country’s total factory production. That, in my opinion, proves without any fear of contradiction that South Africa may be included in the ranks of the most capitalistic countries in the world. Consequently statements from hon. members opposite, linked to the Financial Mail of 5th May, are all the more scandalous. As was implied by this magazine, hon. members also tried to imply this afternoon that South Africa was striving towards socialism, that the action of the I.D.C. was leading towards socialism in our industries. Let us look at what this Financial Mail said in its edition of 5th May. The following is stated in the penultimate paragraph of the article concerned—

That, then, is the implication—the I.D.C. w-as engaged in establishing “State-controlled industrial empires”. I say that that is a reprehensible allegation because it is clear from the statistics I have just mentioned that South Africa is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world and has an economy in which State interference is limited to a minimum. We do not want socialism but capitalism. However, this capitalism should not be such that industrial production has to be in the hands of a few large groups. The Opposition has to tell us whether its attack on the I.D.C. here this afternoon means that it advocates this form of capitalism. That would mean that the industrial production of our country would be in the hands of a few large consortiums or groups. We, on this side, want that form of capitalism in which production will be distributed over the largest possible number of efficient entrepreneurs. Seen in this light, the contribution which the Small Industries Division of the I.D.C. will be able to make will be very important because, through its support of the small industrialist, it ensures that: distribution in which we believe. But this division is also very important in another respect. I realize that assistance is already being given in this connection. I am referring to the imparting of knowledge. At present we have in the I.D.C. a concentration of technical and managerial acumen which is unique and unequalled in this country. It may perhaps be found in one or two other corporations in this country. Consequently, the I.D.C. is a very useful instrument of development which we have at hand and, consequently, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that this technical and managerial acumen will be utilized to a larger extent—in the sense that such technical and managerial acumen will be made available to people who may perhaps not need financial assistance. In this connection I have in mind small industries which perhaps do not need financial assistance, but which may be handicapped as a result of insufficient technical and managerial acumen and knowledge, something which they may get from the I.D.C. [Time expired.]

If the approach of the Government side was more in keeping with the remarks of the hon. member for Wonderboom, then we would not, perhaps, have had this debate on the I.D.C. In any event, I do not want to take part in this debate about the I.D.C. apart from saying that I subscribe entirely to the I.D.C. which has proved itself capable, technically and managerially, of understanding the industrial problems of this country, of assisting small industries, building them up in conjunction with the small owners of these industries, and then fading from the picture the moment those small industries are properly established and are able to look after themselves. If that was done, the I.D.C. would be pursuing an objective which we all approve. However, this is not my problem here this afternoon. My problem relates to the national film industry. In this connection I should like the Minister to give me Information about the R518,500 he is asking for on behalf of the national film industry. The appropriation for this industry has been increasing year after year. In 1963-’64 the appropriation was R200,000, in 1964-’65 it was R250,000, in 1965-’66 it was R350,000 and in 1966-’67 it was R450,000. For the coming financial year it is to be R518,500. I have tried to find out how this money will be used, but I cannot find where, how, when and for what purpose it will be used. All I know is that there is a broad principle laid down that the money will be utilized to help establish a film industry in this country. In 1963 the formation and the establishment of the National Film Board took place, as a result of the National Film Act. As far as I can ascertain the National Film Board—I presume it is still functioning—has only produced one report, and that was for the period 1st April, 1964, to the 30th March, 1965. There is practically nothing in the report.

All the report tells one is that the board is getting itself organized, that it has decided on certain channels of action, and in the last paragraph—if I remember it correctly, because the only copy that is available is with the Clerk of the Papers—it is said that the board finds matters not quite as smooth as they should have been, and that reorganizing is required. I think this House is entitled to know what is going on. There were some questions put to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor last year to which the then hon. Minister replied that contributions were being made to such organizations as Cavalier Films Limited, Killarney Films (Pty.) Limited, Emil Nofal Films, Norval Films, S.A. Film Studios (Pty.) Limited and David Milne Productions. The hon. the Minister went on to say that, on business principle, it was not considered advisable to furnish separate figures in respect of each individual undertaking. This we can subscribe to. We do not want to know what amounts have been given to individual firms by way of subsidies, but what we do want to know is what progress is being made and what is happening to the film industry, which obviously is being subsidized by us. The previous hon. Minister, on col. 2306 of Hansard of 1966, said—

This was about six months ago, and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is now the hon. Minister of Finance, has had many occasions of addressing this House since he said this. But, as far as I can find, we have had no further reference whatsoever to what is going on in the film industry. I think we would like the hon. the Minister to tell us the following: Are the films that have been made locally, all being subsidized by the Government? Are the films that have been subsidized being shown locally and abroad? Because, if one reads the report of the Board of Trade on the question of film production and its potential profitability, it is quite clear that, unless we find an overseas market, these films can never really be (profitable. I think what is most important is this. We. on this side of the House, take a long-term view of things, and we know Rome was not built in a day. We would not mind if the hon. the Minister tells us that the amount of money he has put into the film industry is not yet productive. But what we do want to know is whether we are building an industry which eventually is going to be viable and self-supporting, and whether we are really getting somewhere with it. At the present moment we are completely in the dark. All we know is that over a period of some five years we have advanced some R1,500,000. and that this apparently has gone into subsidizing the production of films. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would tell us what is happening in this industry, what future he thinks it has. whether we are going to continue supporting it, and for how long he thinks we will have to go on supporting lit until it becomes of value to the country.

I am deeply disappointed in the United Party this afternoon. In fact, I feel somewhat afraid of them. In a moment I shall tell you why. Every year when this Vote comes up for discussion and when Economic Affairs and Finance are discussed, they criticize the Government and the Minister and they tell us how poor the Cabinet is and how bad things are. This afternoon the first speaker asked for information. The second speaker took their baby, which we brought up according to their directions, and wanted to give it a hiding. The third tried to make a contribution and asked for information for the fourth time. I am darn (“wragtie”) scared that this United Party is becoming Nationalist.

Order! The hon. member must not use such strong language.

I come to the conclusion that the United Party has accepted at least two facts. The first is that we in South Africa are a hard-working and enterprising nation. The second is that they now admit that we have a good and a most capable Government in power. That is why they cannot get away from the fact that under the guidance of this Government we have reached unprecedented heights in the economic sphere. I should like to mention some of those matters to them, because they avoid them completely to-day and they do not want to face the two facts of which they are aware and which we all know. They are quite rightly trying to collect some information, but they produce nothing constructive. This time they are not even producing poor criticism. I want to nut it to hon. members that what happened in South Africa in the past 20 years has been the result of the guidance of this Government.

Let us consider some facts with regard to the economic situation in South Africa. If one reviews the continent of Africa, one finds that although geographically we cover only 5 per cent of its surface, we are actually responsible for 22 per cent of the total gross production. What is more impressive, however, is that we are responsible for 40 per cent of the industrial Production. We generate twice as much electricity as the rest of Africa and we produce three times as much steel. We produce 80 per cent of the coal of Africa. It is not only in the industrial field that we have made rapid progress, but also in general. In the past five years our growth-rate has been more than 5 per cent a year. In 1965 our gross domestic product increased by almost 7 per cent. What is impressive here, is that in the whole world there is only one country which exceeded that figure. namely Japan. Having regard to these achievements, one might add that we relied mainly on our own resources and obtained very little from the outside. One has to take into consideration that our circumstances have been difficult and that we also experienced problems with regard to our export market as a result of world conditions.

In South Africa we have done more for the under-developed sections than any other country in Africa. As a result of the development which has taken place through the years, the industries provide employment to a million non-Whites. In the past 20 years, i.e. since this Government came into power, the number of non-Whites in the industrial sphere has increased threefold. In that period their wages increased by approximately 250 per cent. I now want to quote one example to demonstrate development that has taken place in the industrial field. I want to refer to the textile industry in respect of which the I.D.C., which came in for so much criticism this afternoon, has made a large contribution. In 1947 the production value of this industry was R12 million, whereas in 1960 it was more than R100 million In 1961 imports represented R115 million, but three years later, in 1964, they had decreased to R46 million. Despite this tremendous expansion and development in industry there is still scope for further development. There can be no doubt that in the past five or six years in particular we have had a period of growth in South Africa as never before. At the beginning of 1961 this tremendous development started. In certain circles it was then feared that we would run into heavy weather in the industrial and economic field. In actual fact our gross domestic product increased by an average of 6 per cent a year. The consumption expenditure increased by an average of 8.5 per cent a year. The current Government spending increased by an average of 13.4 per cent a year The fixed investment increased by an average of 12.9 per cent.

As a rule—although they did not do so to-day—the United Party tells us how bad things are in South Africa. But if we consider these facts, we see that this is not the case.

I want to mention another fact. South Africa is one of the countries in the world with the highest savings figure. In this regard I want to quote certain particulars with regard to the period 1964 and compare them with those of some other countries. The saving on the gross national product was then as follows: United Kingdom—17 Der cent: France—20 per cent; Canada and New Zealand—22 per cent: and South Africa—24 per cent. During the period 1965 personal incomes in South Africa were spent as follows: 5 per cent went to the Government in direct taxation: 85 per cent was s-Dent on consumer goods: and 10 per cent went into savings. In 1962 the saving on personal income was as high as 13 per cent. We attained these achievements in South Africa despite the fact that we experienced many problems, problems which in most cases are peculiar to South Africa. In the first place we have the small White population, which has to bear the burden also in respect of the major part of the under-developed non-White population, something which is not found in other countries. We have a very high import percentage to help build up our gross domestic product. In this respect I now want to quote the corresponding figures of some other countries for the year 1965. In the U.S.A. the figure was 3 per cent, in France 11.4 per cent, in Australia 14 per cent, in the United Kingdom 17.4 per cent, and in South Africa 20.7 per cent. Due to the presence of the under-developed population groups in our country we experience the problem of a constant shortage of skilled labour. At the same time we have to be able to face the problem of imported skilled labour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mayfair referred earlier to the fact that the employment of Bantu in South Africa had increased three-fold during the period which this Government has been in power and that Bantu wages had gone up by 250 per cent. Well, this is a remarkable achievement, and I think that it is something of which South Africa can be proud. But I do wish that the hon. member, and the Government. would learn the logical lesson which arises from this, and that is that South Africa is becoming more and more dependent upon Bantu labour, particularly in the industrial sphere. I want to refer to the hon. member for Florida, whom I have always considered to be an expert on economics. I have admired him as an economist, but I am afraid he is becoming blinded by political expediency. He asked us what other organizations give certain information in their balance sheets. I am sure that the hon. member knows that in terms of the Companies Act, public companies which have share-holdings in other companies have to quote separately, those whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange and those whose shares are not. The hon. member knows that. He also knows that the shareholders of any public company have an annual general meeting at which they can ask questions of the directorate and where they can get information, such as the information requested by the hon. members for Pinetown and Constantia. These are things which can be ascertained, and that is why I say that the hon. member has become blinded. Therefore I think that the hon. member should go back to being an economist and then he can regain the goodwill of this House.

I want to get back to the question of border industries. Hon. members on this side have pointed out that this development is not always economical. Hon. Ministers and other hon. members on that side have always pointed to the ideological background to this concept, and have said that as long as the Bantu can be retained in the Bantu areas any expenditure is justified. According to them, economics was only a minor consideration. The facts that it is uneconomic to develop border areas, that the industrial pattern of this country is being disrupted, that unfair competition is created by the payment of lower wages and other concessions have all been considered of minor importance. The important thing is to keep the Bantu in their own areas. The hon. members for Florida and Krugersdorp mentioned this—all hon. members on that side have done it. But the question is this: How much has this cost the country?

I find that since 1960 certain interesting facts have come to light. My information is based on research done into questions put and answers given in this House, reports of the I.D.C., and the reports of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industry and Development of Border Areas. I find that the following amounts have been expended since 1960: The I.D.C.—R42,561,000; private enterprise is estimated to have invested approximately R220,955,000; the Government has spent on the provision of services R130,782,000. This gives a total expenditure by the State and by private enterprise on the development of border industries of R394,298,000 in seven years. But this is not all that this has cost the country. Certain tax concessions have also been made. I find that so far tax rebates on investment in buildings and machinery have been granted totalling R3,200,000. Admittedly this concession is spread over a number of years. I believe that the Permanent Committee is considering further applications for rebates. Then there is tax rebates on housing for Whites in the border areas. The amount so far granted in this connection totals R694,565. I believe from this report that the Government is at present considering further applications involving tax rebates totalling an additional R994,001. As mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia earlier, transport rebates allowed on industrial products for the Transkei /Ciskei area from 1.5,1964 to 31,12,1966 total R527,000. An amount of R210,000 is voted in this respect this year alone. What about other border industry areas? Do they not also get these concessions? If so, I unfortunately have not been able to find the figures.

So we find that the total of the known tax and other concessions granted to border industry to date is R4,421,565. So. altogether this concept of border industrial development has cost the country so far R398,719,565. [Interjections.] To my noisy friends on my left I say—the question is this: What has this massive expenditure accomplished? What has this Government accomplished by this massive expenditure? The aim of border development is laid down as the provision of employment for the Bantu unemployed work-seekers at their homelands where they can live completely within their family setting and cultural environment—the provision of work for unemployed Bantu in their homelands. Now, how many Bantu have been provided with employment by this scheme? How many, Sir? Does the hon. the Minister know? I think he does not know, because, on the 11th of April of this year, in reply to a question he told me, “I regret that this information is not available.” The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration also does not know, because on the 25th April he told me, “This information is not available as these statistics are not kept by my Department”. What has happened to his system of labour bureaux? These are the two departments directly concerned, and yet they cannot supply us with this information! This Government does not even know whether this massive expenditure of nearly R400 million is succeeding in so far as their ideological concept of keeping the Bantu in the Bantu areas and keeping them out of the White areas is concerned.

We have had various statements by various people. The annual report of the Permanent Committee says that there are approximately 44,600 Bantu employed. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration on 5th April told this House that the figure was 50,000 Bantu. The hon. member for Heilbron on the 17th October last year told us 53,000 Bantu. Who is guessing? Does anybody know? Is this policy of the Government succeeding? Why is the Government so cagey? Do they know the figures? If they know the figures, would they make them available to us? Let us see if this policy is succeeding. Let us then see if we can stand behind the Government and support them. But until such time as we get these facts, we cannot support this policy.

I do not know why they are being cagey. There are two possible reasons. The first is that it is obvious that this development is not economic and, therefore, that it is not in the best interests of the South African economy and industrial development. The second is that the massive expenditure of nearly R400 million, as I said, has not served the purpose for which it has been expended. The small number of Bantu provided with employment in these areas does not warrant this terrific expenditure. Therefore. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us the reason why we cannot get these figures, and which of the two reasons that I have advanced is perhaps the answer to that.

Mr. Chairman, because my time is limited I cannot reply in full to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I just want to mention two points. The first is that the hon. member presents a clear example—judging by his allegations here—of the inconsistency of the hon. the Opposition. One moment they accuse the Government of having done nothing so far to develop the Bantu homelands and of making no attempt to do anything, and the next moment, when the Government does in fact do something, they say we are wasting money and have nothing to show for it.

Allow me to refer to what the hon. member for Soutpansberg said. He outlined this function of the I.D.C. very clearly. The hon. member for Florida presented us with a picture of how the I.D.C. fostered and stimulated competition in the industrial sphere. But the hon. the Opposition come along and condemn their own creation, because according to the hon. member for Florida they are the creators of the I.D.C. And yet they are now attacking it. What are we to think of the Opposition? They change their tune so frequently. On the one hand they accuse the Government of doing nothing in this regard, and if it does do something, they ask: “What have you got to show for all the money?” My time is very limited, and I now want to deal with an important matter which I should like to bring to your attention.

We must admit that in the industrial field South Africa has made a tremendous deal of progress. In actual fact we have made phenomenal progress. From a purely agricultural country we have developed into a great industrial country. If South Africa had adopted the same policy as that adopted by the U.S.A. in the year 1773, when they shook off the shackles of the British Empire and became a republic, we could easily have been just as great a power at present as the U.S.A. But because South Africa was used as Britain’s milch cow through the years, it could never develop in the industrial field and come into its own. It was only under the Government of the National Party that South Africa could enjoy the privilege of establishing its own industries. I want to add to that that the Opposition must admit that since the National Party came into power, South Africa has progressed tremendously in the industrial field.

Our country is richly endowed with basic materials, and they were placed there for our use. Unfortunately I must obviously refer more particularly to my own constituency. There is a certain matter which I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, something which is of very great value to our country. In recent times there has been a great deal of speculation on a possible additional steel factory. I would not go as far as claiming that my constituency is the appropriate place for an Iscor. However, certain places have been mentioned in this regard, amongst them Phalaborwa, which is a possible site for the erection of a second Iscor. I do not want to labour this point.

Let me put it this way. Here I have a report which appeared in Die Vaderland of Saturday, ?9th April, and which refers to Phalaborwa. The report says: “In the Low-veld a giant is growing.” Who would deny that? Is there anybody on that side who would deny that Phalaborwa is one of South Africa’s emergent giants? One of our greatest copper undertakings is there, and there is the phosphorus factory which is providing the farmers of South Africa with fertilizer. Certain by-products are also processed there. But there is still a second giant which is sleeping and awaiting the attention of the Government, and that is the Luluberg complex of the Steelpoort complex.

Progress reported.