Mr. Chairman, on Thursday we witnessed the amazing spectacle of the complete somersaults by the hon. members for Queenstown and Brakpan in their pleas for development to take place in the Ciskei-Transkei Corridor area. It is amazing because for years we on this side of the House have been doing just that, with no support whatsoever coming from that side of the House, and all the Hansards will testify to it. On the contrary, we have had opposition from them in their defence of the Government’s border industry policy. In this case, too, we saw the hon. member for Queenstown spoiling his plea by again trying to defend the Government’s policy. He mentioned industries in East London, but he knows very well that there are industries and industries. He did not tell us that many of those industries which he mentioned employed only eight Bantu and that in fact the total of all Bantu employed by the industries he mentioned was less than 800. But, Sir, we welcome the support he gave us and we also welcome the admission that the Government has neglected this area long enough.

I want to return to the disparity that there is between the border areas. The disregard of inherent differences gives certain areas a terrific advantage over other areas. Sir, an area with a geographic disadvantage of which the Ciskei-Transkei corridor area is a typical example, finds itself at a big disadvantage in relation to markets and raw materials, and it has nothing whatsoever to cancel out the advantages which areas such as Rosslyn, Pietermaritzburg and Hamm rsdale have over it. Sir, this area has been neglected in the past because of the very fact that it is so remotely situated and the least development has taken place there, and all this despite the fact that the pre-conditions for industrial development have been provided. We have, firstly, a harbour, with railways and roads developed and being extended, but the harbour is operating far short of capacity and is very heavily laden with dues which have to be paid. Secondly, there is the question of water. At the moment there is a shortage of water because of abnormal circumstances, but there too water supplies are being supplemented. The Bridle Drift dam has just been completed and the construction of the Fairways Dam has been approved and is to be started soon. But vast sources remain which are still untapped—the Kabusi and the Kei Rivers for example. We have power supplied by Escom but again at a very high premium because of the high cost of the transportation of coal. We have labour; indeed, Sir, we have too much labour. The labour position is set out very clearly in the latest report of the permanent committee. The report gives the number of Bantu coming on to the national labour market from Bantu homelands alone as no less than 35,000 per annum. With the Ciskei and the Transkei Bantu populations constituting no less than 47½ of the total number of Bantu in the homelands, you will appreciate, Sir, that according to the figure given by the committee, we require no fewer than 17,000 jobs per annum, and what do you find? In the same report it is mentioned that since 1960, that is to say, over the past seven years, the number of additional Bantu given employment was only 10,500, and that in spite of the fact that no fewer than 119,000 jobs had to be provided over that period. Sir, that still does not take into account at all the Government’s policy of repatriation, which is affecting the situation very greatly. Because of its labour position, this area is one of the most crucial border areas in South Africa. Sir, with a large Bantu homeland as a hinterland, such as we have, this area is left without any major markets, and the lack of raw materials makes it impossible for any heavy industry to be developed there. Light industries, on the other hand, where the locational requirements are less rigid, have to overcome the pull from established markets such as the Rand and other border areas which are more advantageously situated.

Sir, this pull is so great that but for the capital costs involved and but for the existing legislation, many of these industries would in fact have moved to new locations. We all know that considerable artificial stimuli are required to entice competitive industries from the natural advantages of established areas, and this is particularly applicable in the case of the corridor area where there are so many disadvantages still to be overcome. Sir, even the permanent committee recognizes this. They have placed this area on the highest priority as a growth point and maximum assistance is given to it in terms of existing measures.

But there again the report goes on to say that, despite all this, the anticipated growth has not been achieved. When we come to look for the reason we find of course that the reason is the cost of the basic services and the insufficiency of the rail rebate. All these are basically a matter of transport costs. The 10 per cent rebate, for which R230,000 is allowed this year, is but a drop in the ocean. If one considers the distance, the delays in deliveries, and also the surcharge on the express goods service, one finds we are going nowhere at all. I therefore plead with the Minister, firstly to increase this rebate substantially, and secondly, to make it also applicable to raw materials coming into the area as well as coal which we use to such a great extent. I would ask the hon. member for Queenstown to support me fully in this matter. We all know that concessions alone will not induce industrialists to locate their factories where there are no complementary industries. Thus far factory resources have favoured textiles, because they are labour intensive, but they do not have the linkage rating which is required for industrial growth. We require something on a much bigger scale, something on the lines of Sasol or Iscor, and this would be the cause of diversified industrial growth. I trust that the hon. the Minister, when considering the site for the third Iscor, will still keep the corridor on his short list and not be persuaded to put it elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town will probably forgive me if I do not follow up on his argument, but I did note with interest that he agreed with the hon. member for Queenstown. I now want to predict that after the next election the hon. member for Queenstown will have a very good neighbour in the King William’s Town constituency.

I should like to bring another matter to the Committee’s attention, namely the financial assistance which is being rendered to the local motion picture industry. In this year’s Estimates an amount of R400,000 is given under the South African motion picture industry. Last year this amount was R518,500, and for the year 1966-’67 it was R450,000. This is of course a considerable amount. Hon. members will probably recall that the hon. the Minister informed the House in reply to a question by the hon. member for Kensington that R399,900 had been paid out to the South African film industry during the year 1967-’68.

To realize the potential value of our motion picture industry, particular attention should be given to the following. More than R20 million is being paid annually to our cinemas by approximately 60 million cinema goers. An average of 50 million feet of cinematographic film is being imported each year. At least 75 per cent of the imported films are sausagemachine productions. These are films which the studios manufacture according to formula, and which can be labelled as rubbish. Only a very small percentage are really good, outstanding films, and even some of these are tainted with all kinds of deviations such as homosexuality, integrationistic propaganda, etc., which are offered as so-called psychological films. Nobody can deny that the motion picture is a medium which exerts a powerful influence, and since 1961 all these films have been imported into this country tax free. Monetary assistance to the South African motion picture industry is both essential and laudable therefore. However, I and many others would prefer to see this being financed from import duties on imported films, and not out of State Revenue. This would provide the industry with twofold protection.

The history of the subsidy scheme is briefly as follows. From 1957 to 1961 the manufacturer of the South African motion picture recovered approximately half of its production costs from entertainment tax. After 1962 the scheme was amended. It was amended again in 1964, according to which amendment the manufacturer can in theory now recover far more than only half of his production costs. Except for R22,500, he can now recover all his costs, subject to certain conditions. However, the difficulty lies with these conditions. Before the motion picture can be taken into consideration for the subsidy, it must first hand over R50,000 in box-office revenue before it can qualify for that subsidy.

Subsequently, if it has collected R50,000 by way of box-office revenue, the manufacturer receives 44 per cent of the amount above R55,000 minus R22,500. Since February this year the subsidy ceiling has been raised. The intention of the State is an equally favourable one in regard to the restriction as it is in regard to the subsidy itself. It must serve as a deterrent against bad films, for if the motion picture does not meet with the approval of the public, it is not supported. I do not want to go into the question of public taste, because my time is too limited, but taste does in fact differ. As a result of the subsidy scheme conditions in respect of the R50,000 box-office revenue, South African manufacturers are dependent upon bilingual films so that they can draw a larger number of cinema goers. It is here where Afrikaans, and I want to emphasize this, is not coming into its own. Afrikaans is the language of South Africa. No other country has Afrikaans for an official language. This is a treasured possession only South Africa has, and which should be protected to the full by every South African, whatever his home language might be. This expresses our own unique South African way of life the best.

But what do we find in some South African motion pictures? Afrikaans is being presented, alongside English, as being subservient to English, as being the language of ridiculous “back-velders”. Such films earn a great deal more in State subsidies, while purely unilingual Afrikaans films, with a cultural value, such as the outstanding “In die Lente van ons Liefde” by Louis Wiesner, will receive little or no subsidy, with disastrous results for the manufacturers. Just as it is the duty of the individual it is the duty of the State to protect and promote Afrikaans in the South African film industry. Deficiencies in the subsidy system must be rectified without delay, and if this is necessary, with retrospective effect. If this is not done Afrikaans as a motion picture language in South Africa is doomed. The scheme rests on an economic basis, and does not take the cultural factors or considerations into account at all. Why is it not being planned on a culturo-economic basis? The subsidy ought to be paid to a body such as the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, by way of recognition for meritorious manufacturers. As matters stand at present, no independent manufacturer of purely Afrikaans-language motion pictures can have any hope of economic success.

His enterprise is being smothered by another subsidy condition, namely that motion pictures should be distributed through commercial channels. There are only two such undertakings which can distribute films on a country-wide basis, namely Twentieth Century Fox of America and the South African Ster Films Organization. Together the two companies own approximately 200 theatres. But as the contractors for the most important and most American and British films they have the distribution rights in South Africa of almost all imported films. In that way they also have general control over the approximately 450 independent theatres. It is customary that exhibitors receive an average of 50 per cent of the box-office receipts, and the distributors the other 50 per cent. In the case of exceptional films, the distributors insist on approximately 70 per cent of that amount. The exhibitor can only obtain the few good films from the distributors if he agrees to take the very bad ones as well.

In the case of a South African manufactured motion picture, the box-office receipts are divided up as follows: The exhibitor receives 50 per cent, the manufacturer between 25 and 35 per cent, and the distributor 15 to 25 per cent. Thus hon. members can see that no distributor would be interested in the South African motion picture because it earns him between 15 and 25 per cent of the proceeds, whereas he can earn 50 per cent on the imported film which is brought in free of charge. There are in fact distributors who have interests in motion picture manufacturing. And it is only their films which have a chance of being subsidized. The films of the independent manufacturer have no hope of success, because they are being smothered by the distributor. I can mention an example. “In die Lente van ons Liefde,” which cost approximately R180,000 to manufacture, will earn box-office receipts for the manufacturer of approximately R17,500, whereas he has absolutely no hope of a large subsidy. His loss is estimated at between R150,000 and R160,000. The same applies to the film “Hoor my Lied.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not dwell on the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. It is something which really does not concern me and my particular area, or the problems facing the area which I represent.

But I was particularly interested to listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Queenstown last Thursday afternoon. To me it was a complete about-face for the hon. member representing that particular area. I say “about-face” because I cannot recall— and I have gone through Hansard—when the hon. member pleaded with the Government for industries in the Eastern Cape. When one asks for industries on the borders of the reserves or the Bantustans, let us clearly see and imagine what the borders actually are. While we do plead for industries in those particular areas, where exactly is the border of the Native reserves? I do not regard Queenstown as being a border area. I do not regard King William’s Town or East London as being border areas; they are in white areas. The border areas, as I see the position, are the areas in fact adjoining the reserves, for example the Kei River area. But the hon. member for Queenstown last week accused members on this side of the House, and I think he mentioned us by name, that we have never asked the Government for border industries. In fact, he said we have gone out of our way to ridicule the Government’s policy of border industries. Here is a speech which he made last year, a speech in which he warned us on this side, and me in particular I presume, in the following terms—

These were his own words. In that same speech he also said—

Well, I waited very patiently for the hon. member to visit these places, to tell the people that the policies of this side of the House mean literally nothing, to use his own words. Let me quote from a speech I made during my first year in Parliament. On 16th September, 1966 Col. 2297 I said—

The hon. member for Queenstown rightly mentioned these industries in his speech on Thursday. However, I already mentioned them in 1966. I will not repeat them again now, I went on to say on that occasion—

This is how we pleaded with the Government. Yet the hon. member in his speech said we had never asked for border industries. I mentioned these industries in my speech, as did the hon. member. Consequently, I do not want to repeat them all here now. The hon. member in his speech scratched around in the dustbin in my backyard. I wonder why he does not concern himself more with his own constituency? You know, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member was elected member for Queenstown there were two industries there—a furniture factory and a slipper factory. And today? To-day there is only one. The slipper factory had to close down because the hon. member did not help them. So, I do not blame him for casting his eyes to the East London area, the area which I represent, because we have improved conditions there during the past 24 months. Industries there have doubled whereas industries in his area have been halved by 50 per cent.

Your figures about Queenstown are wrong.

I should like the hon. member to explain to us what he means by “border industries”; which are these particular areas? I have not been successful as yet in drawing this information from the Government. But the hon. member represents the Government and ought therefore to know. I should also like to know whether he is prepared to support us on this side of the House in obtaining work for the thousands of jobless Natives already in the Ciskei and border. I should like to know whether he is prepared to oo-operate in establishing more industries so as to create work for all those Natives who will be repatriated under his Government’s Policy, from the Western Cape to the Ciskei and border. I am very worried about this, especially in view of the fact that we cannot even cope with work for the natural increase of Natives in the Ciskei and border. How do hon. members opposite propose to find work also for the Natives who will be repatriated from the Western Cape and Western Province, according to them 5 per cent every year, to the Eastern Cape? The prospects are quite depressing to us in this area. Will the hon. member for Queenstown be prepared to support me and my colleagues on this side of the House in exploiting the coal fields of that area? I mention the coal fields of Indwe particularly, where there are thick seams of coal. Granted, the quality or grade of the coal can be queried but in any event it is not worse than the low grade coal already exploited in the Klerksdorp area. I have all the information here. The quality of coal mined in the Klerksdorp area is no better than the quality of coal available in very large quantities in the Queenstown or Indwe areas. This is in the hon. member’s own constituency. We could use this coal to generate power. As I have said, we have seams of coal which compare as well as those in the Klerksdorp area. With the modern method of burning coal, by means of which coal in powder form can be blown into the furnaces, this can easily be done. The hon. member opposite sighs—he seems to be tired. I know hon. members opposite are getting tired, but we on this side of the House are getting sick and tired of having to listen to all this talk about border industries and very little being done. Let me tell hon. members that we on this side of the House support decentralization and border industries—as a matter of fact, we are supporting the establishment of industries anywhere in South Africa. But the difference is this … [Time expired.]

I think we can congratulate the hon. member for Queenstown on his speech last week, because it has been a long time since I last saw hon. members of the Opposition in such difficulties over a speech as in this case. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, wanted to know where the border areas supposedly are, and what is actually being done in that regard. He also wanted to know whether the hon. member for Queenstown would see to it that the unemployed Bantu there are provided with work. But surely the reply to that is obvious. If the hon. Opposition is maintaining that they support border industries, let them support the removal of factories to those areas as well, and then there will be enough work for the Bantu. But the fact of the matter is that the Opposition has never up to now supported border industries.

But read my Hansard.

The United Party, as a party, has up to now consistently opposed border industries. The hon. member’s speech may be an exception. I challenge the Opposition to support border industries from this moment on and to take active steps to ensure that expansion takes place. Only if they have done that can they discuss this matter here. But in the past they have opposed the Government’s policy in this regard throughout. I can quote one example after another from Hansard reports.

But the matter I actually want to broach, is our foreign trade, with special reference to the European Common Market. On 25th March, 1957 this market was established, with six countries, i.e. Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Germany, Italy and France participating. This market therefore represents a total of 185 million people. We know that their steel production to-day is equal to 70 per cent of the steel production of the U.S.A., and they are producing motor cars equal to 60 per cent of the production of the U.S.A. In addition, we also note that the annual exports of this European Common Market amount to R22,000 million, and this equals the exports of the U.S.A. If we take into consideration the fact that England may possibly enter that E.C.M., and she could be followed suit by a few other European countries, this community would have a total population of 280 million people, which is a great deal more than America’s 200 million, or Russia’s 220 million. In 1966 South Africa’s imports from the E.C.M. were R328.7 million, whereas our exports were R223.1 million. If we compare this with the exports by the United Kingdom to South Africa, i.e. of R449.2 million as against our exports of R409.3 million, then one can see that there is still a tremendously great difference between our imports and our exports. If we consider that the population of England is only 55 million as against, as I have already said, the 185 million of the E.C.M., it is an indication of how we can trade with them on a large scale, and expand that market even further. Surely it is not necessary for me to point out the importance of this Common Market. South Africa now has ties with this organization, but we shall have to go very far to expand our imports as well as our exports in this country. Now my question is to what extent we are utilizing all the means at our disposal of expanding our trade with Europe? If we do not do so, we are going to suffer in future. All of us know that money talks, whether it is at home or abroad, but if we do not expand our trade with Western Europe a great deal more, it will not have that value for us which we should like it to have. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how far we have succeeded by means of exhibitions, overseas or local, in expanding our trade; secondly, how far we are making proper use of our businessmen who undertake overseas trips and businessmen who return from there, to expand our trade; and thirdly, how far we are utilizing the foreign Members of Parliament who come here, as we had last year from Australia and New Zealand, and formerly from other countries such as Canada. To what extent have we used these opportunities to organize matters properly, so that when those persons come to South Africa, we can bring the position to their attention properly, and do something positive to expand our trade?

In addition I want to point out that since some of our Members of Parliament will go abroad this year, it should be one of the priorities that attention should be given, not only in those parts, but also in other parts, such as America and the East, for the expansion of our trade. There are many things to which we can give attention. There are several things which definitely require attention, but I think that our trade with the outside world should receive top priority. If we could succeed in doing so, it could only be to our benefit.

I think we owe the Government a sincere vote of thanks for the tremendous amount of R4.1 million which has been set aside under this Vote this year to promote our exports, but the question still remains as to whether we will be able to co-ordinate all our strength, or whether we will be able to throw everything into it, and whether there is nothing more to be done. We owe the Government a vote of thanks for everything it has done, but we may never—and I think the Opposition would agree with me here—say, as a country, that we have now done enough to expand our trade. We have heard a great deal about our gold mines declining, and that one thing or the other will happen. Well, I see no danger in our gold mines declining in the very near future. It will quite probably take another 20 years before we reach that danger point, but as a result of new gold mines which may be discovered, as happened in the past, we may still have a major gold production, in spite of the fact that these dangers do exist. That is why I should like to advocate that the hon. the Minister give this matter his special attention, and I should also like to ascertain whether something more is being done. I want to let that suffice, and I just want to say that we are aware of the fact that major concessions are being made in respect of our taxation tariffs, etc., to afford our exporters the opportunity of expanding their exports. We are aware of all these tremendous concessions, but I want to repeat that we cannot leave it at that.

The hon. member for Sunnyside pleaded for increased trade with the Western world, and in this we clearly support him. Everyone in his senses would wish to see that we have as favourable a balance of trade as we possibly can. But I think we should be more ambitious; I think also of the Far East. I might just mention that if we want to begin trading with those areas, some of our businessmen will have to change their points of view. Last year I happened to be in Singapore and I was talking to very senior Chinese gentlemen there who wanted to trade actively with the rest of the world, and I asked them why they did not trade with South Africa. They said: “But we have been there. We went to South Africa and when we got there we established contacts with some of our colleagues and they said to us : ‘Well, do not come to the office; it might be a bit awkward for you. You stay at the hotel and we will negotiate with you by telephone’.” These men went back and said that they had never encountered this in their lives before, i.e. to do business over the telephone in that way. I think it is very unfortunate that some of our businessmen should have reacted in this way, because Singapore is one of the thriving business centres of the world and there are very great opportunities for trade.

But I want to turn to something else. Hon. members opposite always confront us with an either-or choice. In the field of race relations, for example, they tell us that in South Africa we can have either apartheid or integration, but there is nothing in between those two things. I want to extend those same tactics to the field of economics, and I want to suggest that in economics you have either a laissez-faire approach, a “laat-maar-loop-benadering”, or you have State capitalism. Now in contrast to the hon. member for Wonderboom, I do not use the term “socialism”, because socialism presupposes that you have extensive social services. I deliberately use the term “State capitalism”. If we accept that this is the choice before us, then I am also going to suggest that in South Africa at the moment there is every indication that we are moving rapidly in the direction of State capitalism, and I want to indicate two or three fields in which I (believe this manifests itself. It does so, first of all, in the massive proliferation of public corporations, like Phoscor, the Bantu Development Corporation and all the others, bodies which are clothed with the authority of the State but which have the operating flexibility of private enterprise. Some of these bodies were established by statute, but some of them have been brought into being merely by means of an executive decision. There are now more than 20 of them operating at the national level and in 1965 they were responsible for more than 25 per cent of gross capital formation in the public sector. These bodies have become State monopolies. Whereas ordinary industry is subject to the prescriptions of the Monopolistic Conditions Act of 1955, these corporations stand completely outside those provisions and they are growing all the time. They are becoming more and more massive and they are operating in fields where they were never intended to operate. Recently Mr. Roux, who is probably one of the foremost public administration scientists in South Africa, and who is on the staff of the University of South Africa, did a survey of these public corporations. In dealing with the National Development Corporation and with Iscor, and to illustrate the point I have just made, he wrote as follows—

He should have added “also of public accountability”—

Sir, this surely was not what was intended. But I think the worst indictment of the whole system also comes from Mr. Roux, and this comes not from a politician; it comes from an objective outside scientist. In dealing with the whole system of public corporations in South Africa this is how he concludes his article—

I do not think there has ever been a worse indictment of this system than this particular one. He, of course, also prescribes the remedies, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept these remedies which he indicates as follows—

I am doubtful, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister will accept this advice because from what I can gather from the 1948 manifesto of the party on the other side, they said, amongst other things, that ultimately all economic power must be in the hands of the State, and it seems to me that this is precisely what they are heading for. Indeed, in terms of the draft Republican Constitution they went even further.

But there is a second way in which this tendency towards State capitalism manifests itself and that is in all the controls which emanate from the Government as far as industry is concerned. There is no doubt that the industrialists in South Africa to-day have to contend with a greater degree of labour rigidity than obtains in any other free enterprise system in the world, because every single thing that affects the non-white worker in South Africa is subject to Government control. In the manufacturing industry 80 per cent of the workers are non-white; in mining it is 90 per cent and in agriculture it is 90 per cent, so practically everything that happens in industry is subject to Government control. If you want to employ one additional Bantu in the Western Cape, you have to go to four different Government Departments or some of their ancillary services. So we have here a system of industrialization through bureaucratic control; we have a system of economic development on the triplicate system.

As a result of all this you find that the number of people in South Africa who are taken up by the State and its ancillary services is also growing. Experts estimate that at the moment in the civil services, all the public corporations and all the ancillary groups to which I have referred, there are about 500,000 people working. If you assume that each and everyone of these has at least one dependant, then it means that over a million people in South Africa are dependent for their livelihood upon the Government and its ancillary services. Our total voting strength in South Africa is 1,900,000. More than half of the voters in South Africa are thus dependent upon the Government for their livelihood, with results on their political independence that one can only speculate upon. Sir, the challenge I pose to the hon. the Minister is to mention one other free enterprise system in the world where 50 per cent of the voters are dependent upon the Government because they work for the Government. We find in South Africa that a bigger slice of our national income is being channelled through the Government and its ancillary services than in any other free enterprise system in the world. [Time expired.]

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of lending the argument made by the hon. member for Queenstown, my whole-hearted support. On the other hand I cannot omit to state emphatically how concerned we are about the attitude which the hon. member for East London (North) was still adopting this afternoon. Over the years the attitude of the United Party has consistently been to oppose border industry expansion on the one hand, and to present it in a ridiculous light in South Africa and in the outside world on the other. It is with the greatest contempt that I want to mention the methods they used—and I know what I am talking about—when they intimidated the industrialists in South Africa in regard to the removal to the border areas. I regret having to admit this afternoon that they did so with a large measure of success, but thank the Lord there were industrialists in this country who undertook the pioneering work, and who were able to indicate to South Africa and to the world that there was in fact something to say for border industrial development. Mr. Chairman, the party on the opposite side went further; because it suited their purpose, they stirred up the white worker against this idea. Hon. members on the opposite side told the white workers of South Africa that a process was under way here which would deprive the white workers of their work. They succeeded in that as well. Whether I should congratulate them or abhor them, I do not know. But fortunately there were in this case as well industrialists and workers who did not allow themselves to be intimidated with this idea and who continued along this course in a way which really does not redound to the credit of hon. members on that side, and which in point of fact represents them in an unfavourable light. Hon. members of the Opposition told us with extravagant gestures that they believed in decentralization of industries but that it should take place on a purely economic basis.

Yes, on an economic basis.

I also say “yes”, but let hon. members on the opposite side demonstrate to me where decentralization has taken place in any country in the world on a purely economic basis. I agree with the hon. member for East London (North) and other hon. members on the opposite side that it should take place on an economic basis, but it cannot take place on a purely economic basis. We want to have industrial decentralization take place on an economic basis—and I am going to say something about that in a moment—but we also, with this policy of ours, want to safeguard the traditional way of life in South Africa, now and in the future. We want to admit, because economic factors play a role, that it is easier to establish border industries in certain areas than in others, and in those areas where it has been easier to do so, we have already achieved success on a tremendous scale. Sir, it is at this juncture that I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Queenstown. Where he pleaded for his area, I am pleading for the area from which I come. We are situated adjacent to the homeland of Herschel, and my plea is that border industrial development should also take place there. No, as a result of socio-economic circumstances, border industrial settlement must take place. We want to admit that it should take place economically, and that it will not be as easy to do so as it was to establish the border industries at Rosslyn and Hammarsdale, but with the determination of this Government we will ultimately succeed in doing that as well. We want to make this one important statement, which was also made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, not so long ago. We in South Africa are prepared to bend certain economic laws, but we can give hon. members on the opposite side the assurance —and we can give the world outside the same assurance—that this Government will never be so foolish as to bend an economic law to such an extent that it breaks; we will not even bend an economic law to such an extent that it breaks. We have testimony to the effect that our development is of such a nature that it is a model for the rest of the world. We shall continue along our course; we shall maintain it steadily. We want to inform the citizens of South Africa that they can have every confidence in this Government, as they were also able to do in the past. They can know that its policy will be implemented with the greatest circumspection. Our traditional way of life will be implemented both now and in future, without South Africa suffering economically.

In conclusion I want to plead, as I have already done on former occasions, for backward areas in South Africa where, owing to circumstances over which nobody had any control, a steady white development is taking place, and I am referring here in particular to the south-eastern Free State. Border area settlement in those areas offers a solution to the problems existing there.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side, including the hon. member for Smithfield, seem to confuse two principles in their minds. One is the decentralization of industries and the other is the establishment of border industries; one includes the other. If at a certain place there is a favourable atmosphere for the establishment of border industries, then by all means establish them, and I presume the hon. member for Smithfield would like to have Smithfield included in the decentralization of industry. It is not only for border industries that we want decentralization, but we have to follow the modern world in decentralizing generally. That is what we had in mind.

I should like to raise two points, and I shall try to be brief. One is I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made in the introduction generally of the metric system of weights and measures. We have received this excellent report from the S.A.B.S. dated 1965, that is three years ago, and the atmosphere for the introduction of a metric system was much more favourable than I ever thought was possible; it was exceedingly favourable. What surprised me especially was that the engineering industry were quite prepared to adopt and introduce a metric system of weights and measures. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister has done. I see there is provision in the Estimates for subsidies to be granted for the introduction of the metric system. I should like to know how far we have gone. Of course, introducing a metric system of weights and measures has certain advantages over introducing a decimal system of coinage, because in a decimal system of coinage one has to have a D-day, but in introducing a metric system of weights and measures we can introduce it over a period. I should like to know what progress has been made, because three years of that period have now elapsed. That is my first point.

My second point deals with the local film industry. Here I should like to refer the Minister to Sub-head J on page 257 of the Estimates. We had a speech here this afternoon from the hon. member for Germiston (District)—I am sorry he is not here now—on the film industry. I am also interested in a way in the film industry, not as a producer of films but in the money that is granted in subsidies. What are we doing here? We are voting money, the ancient privilege of Parliament. The reason really for the creation of Parliament was the right to vote, or withhold, money. We are being asked to vote money here. Well, if we are voting money, we like to know how the money is to be spent, to whom are we granting funds, where are we spending it? I refer to item “J”—“Financial Assistance to the Local Film Industry— R400,000”. Last year it was R518,500. I put a question on the Order Paper the other day, and this is the question: “What was the amount paid during 1967-’68 in subsidies to the local film industry?” I think that is quite fair. This was the answer: About R400,000 (that is correct to three figures). I asked the further question: “To which firms were subsidies granted, and what was the amount in each case?” This was the reply: “This information concerns individual firms and is considered confidential. I am, however, prepared to furnish the information to the hon. member on request on a confidential basis”. I do not wish to have any information in this House on a confidential basis and I sincerely trust that hon. members on the other side are not receiving information on a confidential basis, under the lap, because that is contrary to the whole tradition of Parliament. That was my question. In other words, that was the information the Minister was not prepared to give. I then asked this: “To which firms is it proposed to pay subsidies in 1968-’69?” That is the R400,000 appearing on the Estimates to which I referred. I am accustomed to the Estimates for Education, and there we are told to which institutions the money is to be paid. I want to know to which film firms is this money to be paid? I ask that as a member of Parliament; this House is in Committee of Supply, and I want to know. This is the answer I got: “I regret that it is not possible at this stage to furnish the required information, even on a confidential basis, except that it may be mentioned that the provision asked for for this purpose on the Vote of my Department for 1968-’69 is based on information thus far furnished by eight firms”. Who are these eight firms; who is going to get the money? I want the Minister to tell us frankly this afternoon who were the firms that got the money last year and to which firms does he intend to give a subsidy this year? That is fair. Moreover, why are they being subsidized? The hon. member for Germiston (District) made an appeal for assistance to industries. I am not discussing that. I am not discussing whether his appeal is justified or not; what I am asking is this: It is the privilege of Parliament to know, when we vote money, for what reason we are voting it and who is the recipient. I should like to know this afternoon the reply to my question.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington must excuse me now if, in the first instance, I do not react to his speech, since I should like to refer to another subject in the debate. I want to refer to a subject which was recently touched upon again by the hon. member for Simonstown, i.e. the False Bay situation, if I can call it that. From time to time the hon. member raises that subject, and it is one of the matters which he spices slightly with politics to try and attract a little attention in that specific area. At one stage an arrangement was laid down in respect of the False Bay situation, and we thought that we would all respect the two-mile arrangement. Recently the hon. member for Simonstown—and I find it a pity that he is not here now—came forward once again and said something in this regard. I find it significant that he involved another hon. member, the hon. member for Kimberley (North), with him. I found it admirable that brothers can sometimes live so amicably together. They insisted that a new regulation be laid down in respect of the False Bay situation. Now I am glad to say that after discussions were held by both parties, the Department made an admirable arrangement in respect of this situation. Provisional discussions were held, and an arrangement was made which is known to both groups at this stage.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the mutual arrangement which has now been agreed to, is the arrangement to which we will in future have to adhere. In respect of that hon. member I should like to mention these two basic matters. I know that it was a question of give and take here. Seen from their side, the trawler fishing industry was not unwilling to compromise in this situation. The hon. member for Simonstown and his people must bear two basic facts in mind. The first is that the scientific evidence in the past in respect of this situation does not favour them. It was significant that the former directory of Sea Fisheries, and also the present Director, as far as I know, gave evidence which did not support the False Bay people. In spite of that I maintain that we have a situation here which has to be met. The trawler fishing industry is prepared to make certain concessions in this regard.

However, I want to mention a second basic point, which is one that presents a danger. I do not think we in South Africa should arrive at the position of trying to zone our long coastline. If we zone our 2,000 mile long coastline, I think we would be creating a precedent which will simply cause us to find ourselves in an unenviable position. When we ponder this situation we must keep these basic facts in mind. I should like to inquire therefore whether any finality has been reached in this regard and whether the arrangement will be of such a nature that both groups will try on their part to adhere to it.

I should also like to make a few further remarks about the fishing industry in general. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and bis Department for what has been achieved in the past few years in regard to fishing harbour facilities along our coastline. In respect of places like Saldanha Sandy Point and others, the Department has in the past few years really been doing their best. We can look back with pride at the earnestness with which the hon. the Minister and his Department looked after the interests of our fishing industry in respect of this specific facet in the past. But I want to go further this afternoon and enter this plea, that we will in future place more emphasis on the Sea Fisheries section. One cannot escape the impression that this section is under the present circumstances, not always keeping pace with the present tempo of the sea fisheries industry. I want to enter a plea to the effect that we will in future allow greater emphasis than ever before in the past to fall on this specific section, which I shall call research. I am saying this for two reasons.

In the first instance it is true that our fishing industry, and to take a broader view, our marine industry, comprises one of our most important economic facets in our country today. Here in the Western Cape it is one of the three pillars on which our entire economy rests. Now there are people who are becoming pessimistic about this industry and its future. It has been said from time to time that certain facets of this industry are going downhill, and that we are exhausting fish resources of this part of the world. But if one makes a global analysis of this industry over the past few years, then it is obvious that there has been a growth in scope and in intensity. I want to quote a few figures to prove my statement. As far as pelagic fish are concerned approximately 82,000 tons were caught in 1948. In 1956 this amount had increased to 421,000 tons and in 1964 to 1,229,800 tons. In 1966 1,183,557 tons were caught. In 1948, 46,610 tons of trawler fish were caught. This increased to 140,450 tons in 1966, which is the most recent figure which I have been able to obtain.

As regards the snoek industry, there has never been a situation where this industry was completely on the downgrade. On the contrary, there were clear signs of growth, also in regard to the smaller facets of the industry. In 1948 we caught 17,280 tons of crayfish, and this increased to 21,000 tons in 1966. I want to make a remark in passing about this specific facet of the industry. I also want to congratulate the Department in this regard on what has been achieved in the past few years in respect of the control of this specific industry. I think our crayfish industry has during the past few years been placed under sound control and we can be proud of what has been achieved. There are a few minor proposals in this regard which will have to be considered. To a large extent our coastline is being protected to-day against those fortune hunters who, from time to time, flocked to these areas and caught crayfish there. I think we will have to think further along these lines so that we will at least get the smaller crayfish dinghies licensed. I think that will be one method of effecting better control over this facet of the industry.

I want to point out that the collection of abalone has increased during the past few years. The catching of sharks has also increased. Taken in general our marine industry has not decreased in importance. In 1963 there were 85 bottom-trawlers in our waters, and this increased to 162 last year, when a catch of 138,407 tons of trawler fish, to the value of more than R7 million, was made. Progress was made in regard to marine products as well. Since 1948 the total value of processed marine products grew from R8 million to approximately R75 million last year. In general therefore all signs point to growth and progress in this specific industry. I want to repeat therefore that our marine industry is to-day one of the most important cornerstones of our economy.

In addition there is a second reason why I am pleading for greater scientific support to be given to this specific industry. It is obvious that the foreign powers are, in spite of high operational costs, finding it increasingly lucrative to keep large fishing fleets operative in our waters. The figures indicate that in 1965 Spain, Russia and Japan, together, caught more than 500,000 tons of fish in the South East Atlantic Ocean. Good results since indicate that these foreign fishing fleets are from time to time achieving greater success than ever before. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to the hon. member who has just sat down, that his remarks about the hon. member for Simonstown are quite unwarranted. I think the hon. member would be well advised not to spoil contributions such as he has just made, by making personal references suggesting that other hon. members are raising matters purely for political ends.

I should like to raise the question of the development of the Northern Cape region of which Kimberley is the main city. In doing so, I want to go back a little, into history, and support the plea made by the hon. member for East London (North). While the war was at its worst in 1942, public figures in that part of the country put their heads together to try to find ways and means of entering the brave new world, which the war was going to produce. They decided first of all that what they would have to have was a plentiful supply of cheap power.

They had reasons advanced by the authorities that there was no suitable coal. I mention this to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for East London (North). We advocated and urged, that the low-grade coal, known as the rubbish coal in those days, at Klerksdorp, at Vierfontein to be exact, should be utilized. It is now acknowledged that it was not only feasible but has been utilized, and that a vast network of power lines radiates from that power station to-day, bringing power to Kimberley, 300 miles away, and taking power to Postmasburg and to Hotazel. The railway line has also been electrified. A power line is presently being constructed to Upington from the same source, and there is another major power line going through the Western Orange Free State, where the junction is at Perseus near Dealesville. That line will be extended further south. I raise this matter because it goes to show that there are men who are not in the political world and who are concerned about the development of various parts of the country. Kimberley and its environs are just as much in difficulty, as are the people in East London. There are over 40,000 Bantu in the city and 26,000 Coloured people. Although the city is described as a growth point by Government spokesmen of whom the hon. the Minister has been one from time to time, nothing happens. We have urged and pleaded, that a steelworks should be established in the region, and we selected a site at Barkly West. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why the reports in connection with these projects are not made public, so that whatever the disabilities or disadvantages may be, the people on the spot can look at them. The position of the Northern Cape has reached such a stage that seven Nationalist members of Parliament, namely the hon. members for Vryburg, Kimberley (North), Kimberley (South), Kuruman, Gordonia, Prieska and De Aar, came together and discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister.

I would like the hon. the Minister to know that the entire region is most bitterly disappointed at the lack of action on the part of the hon. the Minister to the representations made by these hon. gentlemen. When a group of members of Parliament of the governing party, makes representations to an hon. Minister, who is well-acquainted with the difficulties and the details of what is wanted there, and gets a refusal by means of a letter, which was concise only in its vagueness, one realizes that the Government has neglected that part of the country most shabbily for 20 years. My plea to-day is that the hon. the Minister must tell us, whether we can expect anything at all, or whether the region must look after itself and perhaps ask for a little bit of separate development. Information as recent as last Monday, is that the Railways is carting away 60,000 tons of iron ore and manganese a day for export. Surely we have not reached the sorry stage that a country like this, which is bursting at its seams can allow raw materials to be moved out on that scale and be exported to countries, which manufacture the finished article and then sell it back to us? The hon. the Minister has failed in his duty in regard to the development of the Northern Cape region in no small way.

As long as 20 years ago, the cities and towns there started to plan on the assurances of various spokesmen from the Government. They planned their cities, cleaned up the slums, overhauled the water and power supplies, built roads, made the place habitable and decent and did everything that was possible and which was urged upon them to do. I now see in the correspondence which passed between the hon. the Minister and those seven M.P.’s that social considerations are going to be taken into account when the decision in regard to the steelworks is finally made. I am not concerned about the actual site of the third steelworks, of Iscor, but I think that it is time, that the Government should make known what the reports of the Development Corporation and the other corporations which investigated propositions put forward by local authorities in their region, are. We should know what is happening, and also the whys and wherefores of it. I say, quite plainly, that we can no longer accept the statement made by the hon. the Minister in his letter to these gentlemen that the matter is being further investigated. I do not think any further investigations are necessary. I think the hon. the Minister is bucking the decision. He has to make a decision. We have heard so much this afternoon about industry. We are great believers; and always have been, in decentralization. But let us see some decentralization, and let it be genuine. Let it be the sort of thing, which will make for prosperity for all concerned, and not in pursuit of a political ideology. These are the matters which exercise the minds of the people in the region for which I now speak.

I believe that the proposition, as put before the Government, for the extension of the railway—from a point Postmasburg to Sishen to a suitable port on the West Coast—is not a fairytale. It is not something which is so high in the clouds that it is beyond possibility. I believe that it has to be looked at in the same way as Mr. Harold Morris, to whom I now pay a tribute, was responsible for the whole idea of developing the Vierfontein low-grade coal, to provide a network of power for the whole of the Western Free State, much of the gold fields in the Free State and all of the Northern Cape, enabling the mining companies that are there to-day, to mine on a scale and at a price which makes it competitive. Therefore I ask the Minister, when he replies, please to say, once and for all, whether Kimberley and the Northern Cape regions can expect anything from the Government in any shape or form, or whether they must now rely entirely upon their own resources, and get on as best they can, with what they have, where they are. I believe that the departments responsible are far behind public opinion, and I think the Minister should see the signal, when it becomes necessary for eight members of Parliament of his own party, to wait upon him and plead with him as to what should be done. The hon. the Minister knows quite well what the feelings and the ambitions of that part of the country are. He will recall appearing on a public platform with me, at the opening of the Northern Cape Development Congress in Kimberley about six years ago. He made a brave speech. He told them that everything would be investigated. Matters would be looked into. Utopia was at hand. Happy days were ahead. Prosperity was round the corner. Well, it is a long road that has no turning, and we are hoping that to-day we shall see the turning and will meet up with this prosperity, which is around the comer.

Kimberley has a long and proud record in this country. It has been the centre of tremendous mining activity. It has produced untold wealth, which has been the foundation of the development of this country as a whole, dating back as far as 1871. From the Government we have had little or nothing over the years, and over the last 20 years even less, with the notable exception of the Minister of Defence, who has made a start. [Time expired.]

I can reply in two sentences to what the hon. member for Karoo has said.

In the first place I am delighted to know that, when he speaks on behalf of the Opposition, there is at least on the part of the Opposition as well now, a little enthusiasm for the manufacture of steel in South Africa. I can recall only too well what a struggle there was when a steel factory had to be built, when Iscor had to be established. I can recall the terrible resistance on the part of the Opposition, but now, fortunately, they are enthusiastic about the erection of a second Iscor. But, in the second place, I now want to ask the hon. member, who is an old and experienced member, and who has advocated that a decisive reply should now be given and that a site should be determined on in good time for the establishment of the second Iscor, where he gets his sense of responsibility from to propose a thing like that. On the contrary, I want to say that I think the entire country ought to convey its thanks to the Minister and to the Government precisely because of the fact that they have not paid any heed to the appeals from all sides to determine where the site should be. Can the hon. member imagine what would happen if this Government was to state that this steel factory would be erected in the vicinity of Witbank, experience has taught us what will happen. Land prices will soar, and there will be speculation which will not be to the advantage of the State, and capitalists will exploit private people for their own gain. I believe that the way in which the Government acted is the only correct mode of action, and that this future planning of Iscor should only be made public when there will be no opportunity for exploitation or speculation, which will prejudice land owners there, which can prejudice the State and which will benefit only that handful of people who have large resources of capital.

I want to leave it at that and request the hon. the Minister’s friendly attention for a matter which is arousing a little concern at the moment amongst local authorities in certain regions. This is the activities of the electricity control board and the way in which the planning of its work is being carried out. I want to say that I welcome it gladly that the Electricity Control Board and the Electricity Supply Commission is undertaking the utilization of electricity in our country on the scale on which they have done during the past few years. I think this is the kind of work which is done without publicity, but which brought about an enormous change in our country, i.e. the fact that electricity has been supplied cheaply to smaller towns and communities and the fact that electricity as an essential commodity is to-day being made available on farms where it is essential for proper development. When I say that there is a little concern, I want to state in the first place that this is not intended as criticism of the way in which expansion is taking place, but in any case as a suggestion which in my opinion deserves consideration, when thought is given to future planning.

As an example I want to take what is happening in the vicinity of Pretoria and in the vicinity of Bloemfontein. Escom is asked to supply a specific area with electricity, and it is perhaps impossible for a local authority, at such a stage, to comply with the wishes of the people in its vicinity. Then the Electricity Control Board steps in and electricity is supplied to such a region. But there is a second possibility, and that is that such a local authority was perhaps merely temporarily incapable of complying with the wishes expressed by the people in the vicinity, but that it could in fact do so at a later stage. This results in there being two suppliers in a specific area, whose work is overlapping, which is prejudicial to both, as well as to the community.

To return to Bloemfontein, people on the smallholdings are asking for electricity to be supplied to them, and Escom is supplying it. At any given time Bloemfontein is capable of supplying that area from its own generating plant. Now it must be able to do so for individual consumers in competition with a State undertaking, with the result that friction arises between a State Department and a local authority, something which is absolutely unnecessary. I am aware that the question of the provision of electricity by local authorities is also part of the investigation undertaken by the Borckenhagen Committee, which still has to make its report, but I believe that because of the long time this inquiry is taking the Electricity Control Board and Escom should at this stage go into this matter seriously, before an undertaking is given to supply an area with power, and that proper negotiations take place with the local authority or whatever body has generators in the immediate vicinity which they can possibly utilize for such distribution.

Linking up with this I want to ask in the second place whether it is possible to give consideration to a change in the system whereby local authority areas give Escom and the Electricity Control Board the right to grant preferential tariffs for the sale of electricity to industries at a lower rate than the local authority. There are justified complaints, I think, that local authorities expect to undertake the network for consumers, such as house owners and other small consumers, whereas the major supply of electricity, in which the actual profit lies, i.e. to such as industries and mills, etc., is being retained by Escom. Now I am aware of the fact that this agreement can only be cancelled with the consent of both parties under the old contract, according to the old way in terms of which the supply of power was undertaken, but I feel myself at liberty to ask that thought be given to this matter of having an amendment of the act which would at least make it possible for local authorities, when they take over the supply of electricity in their area of jurisdiction to take over all supply of power, including the supply to industries, even if they have to decide on a preferential tariff which they can grant to large consumers.

I will leave the plea of the hon. member for Witbank with the hon. the Minister, because I want to discuss with this Minister a subject with which I think this Government has been toying. I speak of containerization. I know that the hon. the Minister will tell me that he has appoined a committee, but what a wishy-washy manner in which it has been appointed, and what a wishy-washy statement was put out to the Press in connection with its appointment! Let me just give hon. members an insight into the statement which was given to the Press—

And this is the important point—

What a shocking statement, Sir! First of all, does not this committee or this Government believe that we are on one of the main sea routes of the world? It wants to investigate the main sea routes and loses sight of the fact that we are on one of the main sea routes of the world, the link between East and West. Then it says that we need not hurry, because we have such a large non-white labour force which works so cheaply that we do not have to worry about these modern methods which might cost money. I want this Minister to realize one thing, that the pace in containerization will be set, not by his Government and his Department, but by the other countries of the world with which we trade. This Government has been very lax in its approach to this matter. Look what trouble even our own South African companies have taken. Look what one of our coaster companies has done. They have put out a complete brochure to encourage their people to package their goods properly, to containerize them so that they can be conveyed cheaper and more expeditiously up and down our coast. Here Mr. Grindrod has put out a paper, which I hope the hon. the Minister has read, because when I communicated with his Department to find out whether we were represented on certain world bodies, the lack of knowledge of containerization was so great that it shocked me, and I realized that unless some special steps were taken, we in South Africa are going to be left right behind. This is the world trend, as shown in this book put out by the Port of New York authorities. The headlines are: “Container shipping; full ahead”. And what does it say? It gives extracts from the Press all over the world, all dealing with containerization. I hope the Minister has some of this literature. I hope he has studied it, and I hope he is going to decide to speed up containerization. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to me. No, he is not even listening. You see, Sir, that is why we in South Africa do not get any further. [Interjection.] But unfortunately my time is limited and it is being wasted at the moment because the Minister is not listening to me. South Africa should welcome containerization and South Africa should get with it as quickly as possible, because in containerization might well be the solution of many of our problems. It might be a solution to the congestion of our ports, because one of the main objectives of containerization is to save time in the turnaround of ships. Let me quote from the Cunard Line, which has gone into a big combine with four other world shipping companies. This is what was said by Mr. Bates, the container manager. Talking about containerization, he says—

I can go on quoting from book after book on this whole question. This is what Mr. Perkins, the Director-General of the Port of London Authority, had to say. He started his speech by saying—

He accepts it here. I cannot read it all, because I do not have the time. But let us come nearer home. Let us quote Mr. Bamford, the chairman of Safmarine, in an address in Johannesburg on 20th May, 1968. I hope the hon. the Minister will take the trouble to get the whole of his speech. If he has not got it, I will let him have a copy of it. He says this. It is a long speech and I cannot quote all of it, but he says—

So I can go on and on, and I can quote from authority after authority, but the point I want to make with the Minister is that we do not have to, as is said in this Press statement, “investigate and report on it from time to time”. Those are the words he used when replying to a question I put to him. But here is a most important conference, a symposium taking place in London in May, the International Container Symposium. We in South Africa are represented, but not because of the Government. It was just because Mr. Kurt Gundelfinger was going to be there on another job. He is protecting our interests, but I am quite sure the Minister’s Department was not there. Yet he has a committee supposed to be investigating this matter. I think he has slipped on a dozen things on which he should have been represented.

There is nothing new in this.

I wonder whether that is so. When the hon. the Minister gets up, let him show me that he understands anything about containers, because up to now, and this is not the first time I have raised the matter, I have not been able to get one word in regard to the plans of this Government in regard to what they intend doing about containerization. The only news, and the latest news, I have had from this Government is this Press statement in which they say that this committee will report from time to time on the feasibility of introducing containerization to and from South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if his Government does not catch up with containerization, if it is not in the forefront, our exports from South Africa are going to suffer on the world markets, because the shipping companies are looking to this type of handling of goods, whether it be fruit—because containers are also refrigerated, as the hon. the Minister knows—or any other of our exports, excepting bulk cargoes. Unless we are in a position to enter into the container trade when others do we are not going to be able to compete on the world markets. This is why I am raising the question of containerization, not because it is perhaps an «unusual subject in this House, but because it is one of the most important things that is happening in the world of transport to-day, whether it ibe at sea, on land or in the air. The hon. the Minister will know that in the new transport aircraft, goods have to be containerized in some form or other, whether it be on a special pallet or whether it be in a special container. Otherwise in the case of transport by air, by cargo planes, one line cannot compete with a line which properly packages goods before they are loaded on to the aircraft. Sir, I am not talking just about ships; I am talking about every means of transport in every country in the world, whether it be by sea, by air, by road or by rail. Time is important; time is the great factor and that is what I am trying to impress upon the hon. the Minister. You do not just bring these things to the port and pack them into containers. The packaging of goods of a like kind must be done inland or where they are produced, and whilst this appears to be a disadvantage it is in fact a great advantage because you can decentralize the congestion which usually goes with a port or a place of despatch and you can spread that over the country far better than you can without containers. [Time expired.]

I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Umlazi, but I must honestly say that I do not think his speech contained very much. I shall therefore leave it to the hon. the Minister to see whether there is anything in that little tin can of his.

I should like to broach another matter with the hon. the Minister, which is the complaints which are being received to an increasing extent from consumers to the effect that new domestic articles are being delivered in a very defective condition. Owing to the system of mass production in operation in the country and the growing market in South Africa, the tendency exists amongst certain factories to neglect the proper finishing off of their articles. In this way the public is being shamefully exploited by certain manufacturers, and I wonder whether it is not time the Government began protecting the public in some way or other against exploitation as a result of articles which are very poorly finished off, and which are then delivered in that condition to the client. Mr. Chairman, over the years this tendency has also cropped up in Britain, particularly in respect of false and misleading descriptions of and advertisements about consumer articles. Such false claims will now be prohibited by a new Bill which was introduced this year into the British Lower House, namely the Protection of Consumers Bill. I would just like to mention a few examples to you of faulty domestic articles which I have heard about. One of my voters told me that the shelves of a new refrigerator which he had just bought, did not fit, and that some of the shelves had collapsed with foodstuffs and all. An automatic washing machine which breaks down at frequent intervals, while the automatic part was out of operation for a long time, is another case. A friend bought a set of flyscreens, for example, but the frames were so defective that hundreds of flies, moths and other insects continued to come in through the screens. When he wrote to the company about this, he was informed in a letter that his best solution would be to buy himself a good insecticide.

Another question which irritates the public is the so-called guarantees which are provided with new motor cars and which are causing a great deal of dissatisfaction. The owners of new motor cars must make their complaints to the dealer from whom they purchased the motor car, and if he cannot iron out the defects and faults properly, one is then left holding the baby. I know of a case where a man purchased a new motor car and had to take the motor car back to the dealer six times to have a door repaired which would not close properly. Only after the sixth attempt was the door satisfactorily repaired. If one takes a new motor car to a different dealer of the same company then he often refuses to repair the defect because the motor car had not «been purchased from him. If one takes the motor car to one’s own, trustworthy mechanic, one forfeits the guarantee. Then there are also the guarantees which are given on new household items. An electric stove of one of my voters began to give trouble precisely 12f months after it had been purchased, just after the guarantee period had elapsed. I know that all mechanical equipment must ultimately wear out, but it is strange that a factory could display such engineering skill, so that the stove began to give trouble only after the guarantee period had elapsed. The Government ought to do something about these manufacturers who so readily give long-term guarantees, to try and hold them to such guarantees. Then I want to refer to what the Americans call built-in obsolescence. This is also a serious charge which is being levelled against manufacturers. I know of a case where a person purchased a floor polisher. The housewife used it for quite a while and it was still in an excellent condition, but then she had to replace the brushes. She tried everywhere to find replacements and ultimately she learned from the company that they were no longer manufacturing that model of floor polisher and that the spare parts were therefore unobtainable.

Then I should also like to broach the question of the repair services which are offered by some agents of electrical equipment. Many of these are simply terrible, and I wonder whether the Government cannot introduce some form of protection or other for the public.

While I am talking about repair work, there is another matter I want to raise and that is the question of motor repairs. I think this is something which got out of hand in this country a long time ago. The public seldom receives repair work to-day which can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. If one takes it up with the garages, then the blame is continually being put on the shortage of manpower. Some garage owners say that as a result of the former low tariffs for repair work they could not afford to appoint capable and good motor mechanics because they could not pay them enough. That was the time when repair work still cost R1.50 per hour, but now, in urban areas such as Johannesburg, there are garages which are virtually all charging R4 per hour for motor repair work, but despite this the service has not improved. What often happens is that one mechanic works on three or four motor cars at the same time. What happens is that the Bantu assistant at each motor car is simply told what is wrong and then the Bantu begins to loosen this and tighten that, and the white motor mechanic returns from time to time to see how things are progressing and to give advice and tell the Bantu assistant what should be done further. I think the only way of eliminating this poor service is to grade the motor repair shops in the country according to a classification system, in the same way as the hotel board grades hotels. If we grade the garages doing repair work, I think we will receive better repair services.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government could not now at last adopt a firm line of action to induce South African motor car manufacturers to see to it that Afrikaans is also accorded its rightful place on the indicator buttons and the dashboards of motor cars. This is a matter which has already been broached in the past. There is a strong feeling amongst the public in regard to this matter, and I can inform you that the Afrikaans-speaking public who support the overseas companies, are gradually becoming incensed at the fact that they have to drive their motor cars in English. It is a disgrace that our language should be neglected to such an extent in the motoring world and this matter ought to be rectified. We have been asking for this for a long time, and I wonder whether pressure cannot be exerted on these overseas motor car manufacturers by the Government.

Sir, hon. members on the other side really have a penchant for spoiling very good speeches with political nonsense that they always insist on introducing at the end of their speeches.

Nonsense!

I should have liked to congratulate the hon. member on the speech

made by him and on his good contribution to the debate in pleading for the protection of consumers, but he spoilt it all towards the end of his speech. He has done this sort of thing before. It is as though he likes to wave a red flag in front of a bull.

Sir, I do not intend to follow the hon. member. I felt that South Africans had outgrown this childish attitude which pertained in the past. I want to speak to-day to the hon. the Minister in connection with the Act which consolidated the laws relating to the licensing of trades and occupations. I refer to Act No. 44 of 1962. We find that subsection (3) of section 1 provides a blanket exemption for all “charitable, religious or educational institutions of a public character” from the necessity to obtain a trade licence. I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister two rackets which have developed out of this blanket exemption as provided for in this section. Sir, we have found in past years that groups of individuals have formed themselves into so-called welfare organizations and given themselves names such as National Christian Education and Benevolent Society, Christian Revival Team and Welfare Organization, Mother Hubbard Christian Youth Crusade and various other very high-sounding names. I must admit that some of these organizations are registered under the Welfare Organizations Act. There are others which are not registered welfare organizations. What happens is that these organizations are hiding behind this blanket exemption. They work in two ways. Either the organizers themselves sell certificates, which are typed out, to individuals, reading that “So-and-So is hereby empowered to trade and is exempt from the necessity to obtain a licence and is free from prosecution”. It is then signed by the chief organizer of this particular welfare organization.

Under what item is the hon. member raising this matter?

I am raising it under the Minister’s salary, in terms of the circular circulated to all Members of Parliament. Item 9 of that circular reads: “The Department of Commerce will handle all other domestic trade matters.” I submit that this falls under the Minister’s Vote.

Order! I think this matter should be raised under Finance.

Sir, this deals with trading licences.

Will the hon. member explain to me in what way it is connected with this Vote?

As I say, I refer to the circular which was issued by the hon. the Minister’s Department. It is headed: “To all Senators and Members of the House of Assembly.” It then sets out the functions of the two new departments, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Industries. Under the Department of Commerce the circular sets out the functions which the Department will perform, and Item 9 reads: “All other domestic trade matters, including monopolistic conditions and the local distributive trade.” This is the item to which I am speaking. I am speaking about domestic trade licences.

As far as I know licences do not fall under this Department; they fall under Finance.

Sir, this is a trade matter, with submission. It is a question of the licensing of traders, which must fall under the Department of Commerce. The actual physical licensing is done by the provinces and falls under the Department of the Receiver of Revenue. The conditions of these licences, however, are laid down and must fall under the Vote of this hon. Minister.

The hon. member may proceed.

The first racket which has developed is that these people, after forming themselves into such a group, then proceed to sell these certificates to unsuspecting Bantu who buy them in good faith as trading licences. They pay R10 a time for them. These unsuspecting Bantu, having now established what they call a shop within their residential premises, are then prosecuted by the police. It has been found by the police, when they have investigated, that these organizations with these high sounding names are not true welfare organizations and that they are not making any contributions to welfare and other such organizations. The other operation which is carried out under this blanket exemption which is provided for in the Act, is that other organizations empower, under certificate, certain persons to trade in the name of that organization. They are then there as employees. All the proceeds from this trading go to the central group who are pocketing it.

Order! I am now quite certain that the hon. member is talking on an item which falls under the Vote Inland Revenue.

With respect, Sir, I want to say that there is no question of a payment of fees here. This is a question of the exemption from payment of licence fees. There is also no question of an exemption being issued. It is a blanket exemption in terms of the Act.

Who grants this exemption?

It is granted by law. This is the point that I am raising, namely that there is no control over this sort of thing.

Who introduced the Act?

I do not know, Sir. It is the Licences Act, Act 44 of 1962.

That falls under Finance.

I accept your ruling that this should rather have been raised under Finance.

The hon. member for Turffontein raised the matter of the protection of consumers. I must say that he put a very good case. I think, however, that he missed one point and that he might have issued a word of advice to his constituents, namely to deal only with reputable firms. We have had the development of “mushroom” firms in this country which spring up from nowhere. These firms are guilty of all the malpractices enumerated by the hon. member, but there are still a number of reputable firms in this country. If the hon. member is looking for some advice, I want to say that he should advise his constituents to deal only with these reputable firms. With regard to his suggestion that garages should now also be graded—from 1 to 5-star garages, I assume, the same as for hotels—I think that I will leave him to the tender mercies of the Motor Trade Association. I do want to say, however, that I support everything that he said about the poor service which is received by the motor car owner to-day when he goes to these garages, and particularly people who purchase cars which are under guarantee. Once again I want to say that he should advise his constituents who complain, that, in regard to new motor cars, there is only one answer and one recourse that they have, and that is to have the work done and to submit the account to the factory for payment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I owe the hon. member who has just resumed his seat any apology in not following up his argument, because there is nothing to follow up. However, I want to express my displeasure at the hon. member’s shocking reference to the hon. member for Turffontein’s plea for justice to be done to Afrikaans in the motor industry. I say that it was shocking to have witnessed here this afternoon the contempt once more displayed by the United Party for Afrikaans. Such action on the part of the United Party must not be allowed to pass unnoticed.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not give the Committee an indication of what progress has been made with the investigation into oil polution along our coastline. I think this is a matter which is causing great concern to most hon. members, and such an indication would therefore be very welcome.

The matter to which I should very much like to refer this afternoon, relates to the take-over bids by certain undertakings which are at present the order of the day, as it were, take-overs not only on a horizontal plan, but also on a vertical plane. These take-overs are more and more leading to the creation of monopolistic conditions, which also cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. I think that this Government has shown itself from the earliest times as being a Government with a very great interest in this matter. The position now is that more and more bids are being made to take over forms. In actual fact there are only two ways to combat this tendency. The one way is that of intervention on the part of the Government. However, I do not believe that such action would meet with general approval, nor do I think that the Government itself would like to adopt this method. The only alternative is to create a climate in which the smaller undertakings can come into their own. In this connection I want to express sincere appreciation this afternoon for the work which the I.D.C. is doing in order to allow small industries in our country to come into their own. If one looks at the statistics, one sees that between November, 1962, and June, 1967, i.e. over a period of five years, 102 small industries were assisted by the I.D.C. to an amount of more than R2 million, which means that each industry was assisted by R20,234 on the average. For this reason I want to express very sincere appreciation towards the I.D.C. this afternoon. The small entrepreneur, however, has two problems. One is the lack of the necessary knowledge, the preparedness of that entrepreneur in respect of business management, acumen and so on, and the other problem is that of capital. The latter problem can easily be solved, because the entrepreneur can be assisted by the I.D.C. But the real problem is: Where does the man obtain administrative knowledge? I want to ask very earnestly this afternoon if much more cannot be done to convey this administrative knowledge, this acumen, which is so necessary to the success of the undertakings, to the entrepreneurs concerned. Can the I.D.C. itself not have a greater share in it instead of only providing the capital? Cannot the I.D.C. or the State assist in activating our universities and the Management Foundation to do more in this regard?

This brings me to my next point. If we look at the White Paper, we see that in the current financial year an amount of only R4,000 is proposed for the Management Foundation. Surely this is a negligible amount and I want to ask very earnestly this afternoon whether this amount cannot perhaps be increased indirectly through the intercession of the hon. the Minister and the influence which he can exert with the I.D.C. If this can be done, I am sure that this small industrialist will in future be the actual backbone of industry in South Africa. Then there can be no talk of monopolistic conditions, but then there can only be sound growth and prosperity in the industrial sphere, and surely we are all striving to achieve that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs referred to the dangers of State monopolies in South Africa, and if he was not here when the hon. member for Hillbrow spoke then I commend to him that he should read that gentleman’s speech which sets out very accurately what encroachment on private enterprise is being committed by the State to-day. Unfortunately I was called out of the House when the hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke and I therefore only have heard at second-hand some of the remarks he made in connection with attempts by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) and myself to get a bi-partisan approach to the banning of trawling in False Bay. It seems the hon. member for Moorreesburg has been so long in a political organizing capacity that he sees a political motive behind everything done by his political opponents. This has been a genuine effort by hon. members of the governing party and by the Opposition to try to have trawling banned in False Bay because we believe the marine resources of that bay are being systematically exterminated, and there is scientific proof for this.

It might interest the hon. member to know that over one half of hon. members on both sides of this House have already signed this petition to the hon. the Minister asking him to ban trawling in False Bay, and that excludes the members of the Cabinet for obvious reasons. It will be interesting for people who support the False Bay Conservation Society’s efforts to have trawling banned there to know that the hon. member for Moorreesburg considers that people such as the mayors of the Strand, Gordon’s Bay, Simonstown, and Fish Hoek—and their Councils—to be indulging in political activities. Quite apart from that, members of divisional councils, angling clubs, tourist organizations, hoteliers, publicity assocations, all of these have joined forces to try and prevent trawling from exterminating the marine resources of False Bay. They ail are united in believing that bay must be closed to trawling. He says that there is no scientific proof that harm is being done to the resources of False Bay by the trawlers. It appears that he is supported by the present Minister, who as long ago as 1964, long before the Yeats Commission reported, took up a violently partisan attitude in this matter. This is what he said in a letter to the then secretary of an action committee which was formed to try to prevent trawling in False Bay:

Then he concludes by saying:

Mr. Chairman, after the Yeats Commission which had been appointed in 1964, reported in 1966, he was supported by the present Director of Fisheries, Dr. De Jager. He made a broadcast recently, in which he said:

The Yeats Commission’s report, on the other hand, regarded the matter so seriously that it said that there should be—

Then it added this rider. This is significant and it underlines my statement that there is definitely proof that the fish are being eradicated by this unrestricted trawling, because that is what the report then said—

It is hardly likely that a commission of eminent people such as the Yeats Commission would add that rider if there was not a serious danger of the depletion of the resources.

Local people will tell one that when the snoek season recently opened there were more bait fish in the bay than there have been for a very long time. As soon as the boats come back into False Bay these bait fish disappear and with them disappear the summer or the shoal fish.

He went on to refer also to world fish catches and he said that there was an increase. I agree with him. Of course there is. There is better equipment available. Boats are fishing further afield for their catches. But I would like to refer him to the figures for the pilchard catches off the South African coast and the South West African coast for 1966 and 1967. In 1966 the figure for pilchard catches off the South African coast were 181,471 tons and the allied fish to the pilchard, the red eye, 4,978 tons. What were the figures for 1967, the next year? An enormous drop of 100,000 tons in the pilchard catch. During the same period the anchovy catches off the South African coast have increased.

Yes.

Does the hon. member remember what happened in California? In California they concentrated on the pilchards. The pilchards were practically exterminated, and now they are catching more anchovies off the Californian coast to-day than ever before. The pattern is repeating itself here. As pilchards are eradicated, so more anchovy will be caught. I ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who knows so much about the fishing industry, if he does not agree that the pilchard is of more value to South Africa than the anchovy.

Having dealt with the hon. member for Moorreesburg, may I refer to my private member’s motion on 7th February of last year, in which I asked the Minister to give his consideration to the establishment of a 12-mile territorial belt off the South African coast, the further establishment of fishery zones outside of the territorial waters, and the appointment of a commission of inquiry. I maintain that the figures that I have given to-day in connection with pilchard catches and the increase of anchovy catches, which is consequential, fully justify the attitude that I adopted at that time that there should be a commission of inquiry because of the danger of the depletion of our marine resources.

As to the international aspect, may I just say this. The Minister’s reply was that in 1964 the Prime Minister had made a statement that territorial waters had the previous year been extended to six miles, that there was a fishery zone of a further six miles, in all a belt of 12 miles, and that that was sufficient, more particularly as the South African Navy and the Air Force were being used for special fishing protection services. I want to ask The Minister: How many trawler have been caught within that 12-mile belt since the Prime Minister made his statement in 1964, and more particularly since he made his statement last year in February? How many have been apprehended off the coast of South West Africa or of South Africa? Then he went on to say in his reply to me that instead of the extension of territorial waters, the other alternative was to get agreement with fishing countries utilizing the waters off our coast. How many agreements has he negotiated with fishing countries in respect of their fishing operations for conservation purposes off our coast since he made that statement? He pointed out also that we were a member of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, and he said that as such we could take unilateral conservation steps. What unilateral conservation steps have we taken? What further steps have been taken to secure their agreement and to prevent them breaking any unilateral steps that we might have taken?

Then he went on to say that there should be research before conventions were entered into between the various countries. Now I ask him: What research has taken place since he made that statement?

Lastly, may I just say that it appears that the Minister, when he made his reply to me last year, was not aware of developments in the international legal field as regards territorial waters since the 1958 Geneva Convention. I would like to point out to him that after that convention of 1958, 28 states had a three-to four-mile territorial sea, 14 had a six to 12-mile territorial sea, and 14 a more than a 12-mile limit. To-day the position is that 19 states have three-mile limits, 20 states have a six to 12-mile limit, and there is a great increase in the number of states with a more than 12-mile limit, namely 25. I suggest that this year he should accept the resolution that I moved last year.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the debate the hon. member for Parktown referred to the Kennedy Round and asked me to what extent changes would possibly be effected as a result of representations Britain had made in this regard. The Kennedy Round made provision for a rebate in respect of certain tariffs. Those tariffs were negotiated on a broad basis. We reduced, or agreed to reduce, certain tariffs on a percentage basis over a period of years. At the same time other countries agreed to grant us certain tariff preferences or concessions. It was not a case of one country doing so towards the others. Every country had to consider what the total benefit was both in respect of itself and other countries, and on that basis every country had to decide whether it would be a signatory to that Kennedy Round Agreement. South Africa also became a signatory. Then the hon. member for Parktown referred to the concessions in so far as they affect certain guaranteed preferences enjoyed by South Africa. The position is that in terms of this agreement some of these preferences were reduced by as much as 50 per cent. Where we had 10 per cent preferences, they have now become 5 per cent. He also referred to those specific preferences, in respect of grapes for instance, where it used to be 8/6 and would now be reduced to 2/s. Therefore this does not only apply to ad valorem preferences, but also to the other cases where a price has been fixed. It was initially agreed that we should abandon these 50 per cent preferences as follows: 40 per cent as early as 1st July, 1968, then 20 per cent on 1st January, 1970, another 20 per cent in 1971, and the last 20 per cent in 1972. These were the proposals on which agreement was reached in the course of the Kennedy Round negotiations. Subsequent to that there were negotiations between Britain and the U.S.A, which affected South Africa as well. South Africa was consulted in that regard. Then the hon. member referred to my statement in this regard in which I indicated that South Africa had raised objections with the British Government in view of the fact that the British Government had suggested to the U.S.A, that they should not continue with certain protective measures which it was expected the U.S.A, would take so as to overcome its own balance of payment problems. To prevent this Britain suggested that this 50 per cent should be made applicable in full as early as the beginning of next year. That would have had an adverse effect on our important exports. Whereas we would otherwise have had the opportunity of adapting ourselves to changed circumstances, we would then have to adapt ourselves to them immediately. Therefore we raised objections in the course of our negotiations with Britain. Britain’s proposed action was also conditional, i.e. Britain would only grant these concessions provided that the E.E.C. countries agreed to them. The fact of the matter is that the E.E.C. countries did not agree to them. But the E.E.C. countries have in fact intimated now that they are prepared to accept certain changes, i.e. that the 40 per cent be made applicable now. Instead of the next 20 per cent only coming into operation on 1st January, 1970, it should come into operation as early as January next year; then one year should be skipped and the next 20 per cent should come into operation in 1971 and 1972. Therefore, the duration remains the same, but the next concession will come into operation next year instead of in 1970. Therefore that is the proposal which is being made. Negotiations are still in progress and no finality has been reached as yet. But even if that were to happen, it would probably have affected some of our important exports. That is why we have at this stage already indicated to the British Government that the more rapid relaxation would1 in fact prejudice some of our exports, particularly our agricultural exports. We have also requested the British Government to take this into account in further negotiations and to try to protect us in respect of those specific industries so that we may be granted every opportunity in terms of the original Kennedy Round Agreement.

The hon. member also referred to our exports. He wanted to know what was being done in general to stimulate our exports. The hon. member for Sunnyside also referred to that matter. The fact of the matter is that there has been a considerable increase in our exports over the past year. In 1965 our total exports amounted to R160 million. Last year they amounted to R 1,355 million. There has been a considerable improvement as far as our exports to Africa, Europe and Asia are concerned. Our exports to Asia have in point of fact more than doubled. The interesting fact is that the statistics available for the past four months indicate that South Africa’s exports over these four months were much higher than they were over the comparable four months of 1967. Over these four months there was an increase of approximately R100 million in our exports, i.e. an increase of 26 per cent as against those of last year. In looking at our imports, we notice that there has indeed been an 8 per cent decrease in our imports, which has had the effect that our debit balance of trade, gold excluded, is much smaller than it was in the past. Reference was also made here to the fact that it would be our industrial exports in particular which would have to take the place of gold in the future. That is why it is also gratifying that it is in particular the exports of our manufactured goods which have increased considerably. A comparison of the first three months of this year with the comparable three months in 1967 indicates that our exports of manufactured goods have increased by 15 per cent. This is, therefore, a significant increase. This also applies when the past year is compared with the previous year. Very good progress has also been made as regards machinery and transport equipment, which is an indication that our industrial products are being exported to an increasing extent and can compete with those of other countries. It was also asked what was being done by the Government to promote our trade. Specific reference was made to our export trade. I want to point out that in the division of the Departments provision was in fact made for a department of commerce and a department of industries. The mere fact that this division was effected, is an indication of the importance that is being attached to these matters. The hon. member for Pietermartizburg (District) referred to the statement I had made in this regard when he said that the Licences Act of 1962 would fall under this Department, since I had said in my statement that all domestic trade matters, including monopolistic conditions in the local distributive trade, would fall under the Department of Commerce. However, the heading states explicitly—

It is clear, therefore, that there has been a division of the functions this Department had. These are not new functions. Section 14 of the Act to which the hon. member referred, provides that the Secretary for Inland Revenue is responsible for the implementation of the Act. Therefore I do not think that there is much scope for misinterpretation. The fact that the former department has been divided, shows what importance the Government attaches to commerce in itself. Recently there has also been extension as far as our foreign representation is concerned. Last year a trade adviser was appointed in Geneva. In addition new offices were opened in the Argentine and in Brazil, and they are being staffed this year. Our foreign trade service is therefore being reinforced as far as staff is concerned. In these Estimates provision has also been made for more exhibitions than was the case in the past. We are also spending more on articles on conditions in South Africa for dissemination abroad.

Reference was also made here to the importance of contact in the sphere of trade. For instance, mention was made of South African industrialists who go abroad. I want to confirm it, too. The fact of the matter is that our own industrialists who go abroad as well as those overseas industrialists who visit us, are important sources of contact. South Africa has never had as many foreign missions in this country as has in fact been the case over the past year. One mission is followed by the other in increasing numbers. At this very moment a very strong trade mission from Australia is visiting South Africa in order to hold a major exhibition here. This is an indication to us that other countries are showing more and more interest in our trade. The same applies to us as well. That is why we feel that we should receive these trade missions as well as we possibly can, and that we should offer them every facility. At the same time we also want to encourage our own trade missions to foreign countries. A mission of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce is also abroad at the moment.

I also want to refer to the Export Promotion Board which has just been established. We have already received the nominations for that board from the seven organizations concerned. As for the five members we are to appoint ourselves, I wish to state that we have already approached these persons. Unfortunately one of them is abroad; otherwise we would have been able to announce their names. We are awaiting his return. It is hoped that this board will meet in Pretoria early in August, and the members who have already accepted nomination, have in the meantime been asked to inform us as to what matters they wish to have on the agenda and what they want to discuss with us in the interests of promoting our exports.

Then I can also refer to the extension of the credit reinsurance scheme, as well as export financing by the I.D.C., which has become a very important factor in enabling our exporters and industrialists to tender for overseas contracts. They have already managed to secure major contracts as a result of this assistance we granted them.

The hon. members for Paarl and Albany also made reference here to another important matter, i.e. the effect of devaluation on some of our export industries, especially some of our agricultural processing industries, and the export of some of our agricultural products. When it was decided that South Africa would not devalue, the Minister of Finance made the following announcement—

As a result of this announcement representations have been made from time to time to the Departments of Finance, Agriculture and Economic Affairs, and in these Estimates an amount of R4 million was therefore appropriated for this purpose. In the meantime a very thorough analysis of these requests for assistance was made jointly by the departments concerned. Even the Department of Forestry was concerned in so far as the wattle-bark industry was affected. There was a large group of manufacturers, including those of motor spares, synthetic rubber, elements for kettles, lead products, suitcases, bicycle saddles, caps, etc., who lodged applications, but then there were also the sugar industry. Amcor, the citrus industry, the fruit and vegetable canning industry and the wattle-bark industry. In addition there were individual agricultural producers such as those of sweetmelons and lupin seed. Then there is the problem of the deciduous fruit industry itself. They have not made specific representations to us as yet, but I shall come back to this matter. The fact remains that some of the persons who approached the departments concerned for assistance because of devaluation, did so because although their contracts had already been finalized, they had stipulated that they would have to be compensated in sterling on a future date. In the meantime. after delivery and before payment, the British devaluation took place. It has been decided that no assistance would be granted in those cases, because that is a normal risk. Those who sold their articles in that way, could have insured themselves against that by making the necessary arrangements with the banks. Facilities do exist in that regard. Then there are cases where it was stipulated that payment should be made in sterling but where those contracts were still being executed. In those cases those persons who had stipulated that payment should be made in sterling, could also have insured themselves against the risk, and most of South Africa’s exporters did in fact insure themselves against it. since indications of possible British devaluation had been in the air for months, in spite of official denials on the part of the British. This is therefore a trade risk against which they could have insured themselves.

But then we have these other groups to which I referred. As far as the citrus industry as well as the canners of citrus juices and grape-fruit segments are concerned, the Government has already decided to investigate their problem fully. In all these cases where there are organized bodies of the agricultural industry, negotiations were conducted with them in conjunction with the various departments. This industry had to know before the start of this season, because deliveries had to be made to the canning industry and to the juice industry. Some of them are geared for export, and they had to know what the position was. That is why a specific agreement has been concluded with these three groups, and assistance to the total amount of R2,447,999 will be granted to the fresh citrus fruit industry, the citrus juice industry and the grapefruit segments industry. As regards the canning industry, the position is that the price that would be paid to the industry, and the peach industry in particular, was agreed upon prior to devaluation. There is therefore no change. But our canning industry has been struggling over the past year because of competition from other countries, especially from Australia. Therefore the canning industry has its own problems. They have marketed their fruit, and so far they have in fact succeeded in virtually disposing of their entire consignment, but the price it fetched is lower than it was before. The final figures are not yet known, but we have already intimated that we are prepared to help the canning industry as soon as they have calculated the final figures.

As far as the deciduous fruit industry is concerned, the final figures are not available as yet. However, we have already seen analyses. Certain varieties of deciduous fruit have fetched higher prices on the British market than was the case in the previous season, whereas other cases lower prices were obtained. We find that the apple industry in particular suffered considerably, because they have to compete with apples kept in cold storage and specifically because of the high production by the rest of Europe. The apple industry has therefore been faced with major problems in recent times, but before the export season has come to an end, it is impossible to determine what their position is.

Then there is also the problem of the pineapple and fresh beans canning industries. The pineapple industry is subject to a yearly season, but it has its peak periods. More than 70 per cent of this year’s production has already been canned, but pineapple canners are experiencing very strong competition not only from Australia, but also from Formosa, Hawaii and the Ivory Coast, which are new entrants to the market. It was agreed that this industry would go on canning pineapples. At the moment they are paying the producer less than was the case in the past, but drought conditions have also had an adverse effect on the pineapple industry. Therefore as soon as this canning season has come to an end and we know what the final position is, this matter can be considered. This matter was negotiated fully with this industry, and last week further discussions took place among the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, the canners as well as the producers.

May I put a question? The citrus farmers are being compensated for approximately 75 per cent of their losses. Is this a general principle, or is it expected that 100 per cent of the losses will be refunded?

It is not expected that they will receive 100 per cent. Nor is there a fixed formula as regards the 75 per cent. It varies from case to case. It does not necessarily mean that a basis which has been agreed upon for the citrus industry will apply throughout. As regards the green beans industry, the market has suffered considerable setbacks. A thorough investigation is being made into the extent to which it would be economically remunerative to plant the next crop. The Department of Agricultural Economics is conducting negotiations with the producers in order to ascertain what is to be done in this regard and whether it would not be more remunerative for them to go in for other crops.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the question of pineapples for canning, but he has not mentioned the export of fresh pineapples.

The export of fresh pineapples forms a relatively small part of pineapple production as a whole. This matter will also be dealt with. They are aware of the fact that the whole matter will have to be investigated. You will notice that of the amount for which provision is made in the Estimates an amount of almost R2.5 million has already been allocated, and at this stage already it is obvious that this amount will not be adequate and that additional amounts will have to be requested in order that the agricultural industry and the canning industry may be compensated. But until these final figures have been obtained, it is impossible to agree upon a final amount

The hon. member for Kensington, as well as the hon. member for Germiston (District), referred to the film industry. Owing to indisposition the hon. member for Kensington is unfortunately not here, but he referred to the amounts that had been paid and the fact that we did not want to make those figures available. We feel that in this respect it is a question of a subsidy paid to individual firms, and for that reason I felt, as the Department also did in the past, that it would not be advisable to make that information available. But apparently hon. members of the Opposition do not share this view, and I am quite prepared to indicate what the names of these firms are and what the lump sum was that was paid to them. The following amounts were paid out last year: R351 to Norval Film Productions, R4,671 to Jamie Uys Productions, R485 to David Milne Productions, R28,008 to Killarney Films, R963 to S.A. Film Studios, R149,344 to Cavalier Films, R112.981 to Emil Nofal and R103,109 to Mimosa Film Productions. As far as this year is concerned, it is impossible to indicate what will be paid to each of them, for you will appreciate, Sir, that the year has not yet ended and that they are granted subsidies based on box-office revenue. Therefore, until the figures in respect of this year’s revenue are available, it is impossible to indicate how much will be paid to each of them. But if hon. members want to know what the names are of the companies of which we know up to this stage, I can furnish them with that information as well. They are Cavalier Films, Killarney Films, Mimosa, Protea, Panorama, Percival Rubins, David Milne, Emil Nofal and Sven Person Films. These are the ones that are known at this stage

Reference was made here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) to South Africa’s own film industry, and in this regard a subsidy scheme was introduced in 1957 in an attempt at encouraging a South African film industry of our own. It is a fact that this subsidy has increased from R21,000 in 1957, to R100,000 in 1961, and to R400.000 at the moment. This is an indication that more South African films are being made, but the complaint is that the exclusively South African film is perhaps not getting its rightful share. This experiment of encouraging the South African film industry by way of subsidies has already reached an advanced stage, and in consultation with the Department of the Interior as well as the Department of Cultural Affairs we have already decided to investigate this whole matter and to see whether it is not possible to employ better and other methods to stimulate the South African film and especially the Afrikaans film to a greater extent

The hon. member for Kensington also wanted to know how much progress we had made in regard to the metrification of weights and measures, for which an additional amount is being appropriated here. The Standards Council recommended that a metric advisory board, advisory to the Minister of Economic Affairs, should be established. This board was in fact established and Dr. Ben Gaigher was appointed chairman. He is assisted by various members. They have already met a few times and decided to establish three subdivisions: a division dealing with conversion in the industrial sphere, a second division dealing with conversion in the commercial sphere, and a third division dealing with conversion in other miscellaneous services. It was also decided to give priority to certain conversions in the industrial sphere. The Louw Commission calculated that the cost of conversion would possibly amount to R17 million over a period of ten years. Managers have already been appointed for two of these divisions, and negotiations are in progress as regards the third division. I can give hon. members the assurance that a great deal of progress has already been made in connection with the preliminary investigations and that negotiations have already been conducted in connection with the conversion, but unlike the procedure followed in the case of the decimal coinage system, one specific date for the conversion was not decided upon; it will be done step by step and the industrial sector will be the first to proceed to doing so.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted to know whether it was not possible to simplify textile tariffs. I can inform the hon. member that such an instruction has already been given to the Board of Trade and Industries. Professor Reynders, who was appointed on a part-time basis, was charged with this investigation. Therefore this is a matter which is already receiving attention.

Various hon. members made reference here to the important position occupied by the I.D.C. and to its functions. Both the hon. member for Wonderboom and the hon. member for Vasco referred to the contribution made by the I.D.C. in respect of small industrial enterprises. From the latest I.D.C. report it is clear that virtually 42 per cent of its applications deals with small industries requiring assistance of less than R50,000. The small industries division of the I.D.C. has only been in existence for a few years, but it is clear that it has in that time fulfilled an important function.

The hon. member for Vasco also wanted to know whether the Atlas factory should not give consideration to manufacturing light aircraft. The Atlas factory is a private enterprise. The I.D.C. also has a shareholding interest in that factory, but it is a minority interest. They have entered into an agreement with the Munitions Production Board to carry out certain repairs and they also partly manufacture or assemble certain aircraft on a contract basis. But the Atlas factory is a completely private enterprise. It is possible that they may be interested in that field, but the Government cannot bring pressure to bear upon them to move into that field. They themselves will have to decide on business principles whether they want to move into that field.

The hon. member for Karas referred to Iscor and wanted to know whether it was not possible to investigate the conveyance of iron ore to Luderitz. Investigation work in connection with Iscor is being undertaken by the directorate of Iscor; they have been charged with that task and they will make recommendations to the Government. As far as the pipeline itself is concerned, it is not a foregone conclusion as yet. It is merely a possibility that will be investigated. I shall also refer the hon. member’s request in connection with Luderitz to them so that they may include it in their investigations.

The hon. member for Kimberley referred to the position of Kimberley, and his plea was that the third steel factory should be established there. He made the statement that so far virtually nothing has been done for Kimberley and its surrounding areas.

You mean the hon. member for Karoo.

Yes, I mean the hon. member for Karoo. My confusion is attributable to the fact that an end is possibly going to be put to the representation of Coloureds in this House. The hon. member’s plea is very clearly aimed at trying to prepare for himself a niché in Kimberley.

The hon. member for Karoo said that no official statement had been made so far, that we were vague and did not say anything. He went on to say: “No investigation is necessary.” Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, an enterprise must be established here, a factory on which hundreds of millions will be spent, but the hon. member wants the directorate of Iscor to make a recommendation to the Minister without a prior investigation taking place.

An investigation was made 20 years ago.

The hon. member says that an investigation was made 20 years ago. As a result of that investigation it was decided 20 or 30 years ago that the first Iscor should be established at Pretoria. As a result of subsequent investigations the second one was established at Vanderbijl. Surely, at this stage, conditions in South Africa are quite different from what they were 20 years ago, but now the hon. member refers to an investigation that was made 20 years ago. There is a vast number of factors that have to be taken into account. It is not merely a question of iron ore; there is the question of coke that has to be used and conveyed there; there is the question of the export potential; there is the question of domestic distribution that has to be taken into account; there is the question of labour, water, electric power, etc. There are many factors that have to be taken into account.

Then there is in addition a new factor, i.e. the question of the possible conveyance by pipe-line. The hon. member referred to that and said that we were not saying anything in that regard. The fact of the matter is that the persons who visited countries abroad in order to investigate the implications and all the problems in regard to the use of pipelines, only returned to South Africa last week, but the hon. member expects us to say in advance where the third Iscor is to be established. I can assure the hon. member that Iscor will be the first to know where a third factory is to be established, and subsequent to that they will decide what to do. It is impossible to say in advance where such a factory will be established. That would give rise to all sorts of speculation and in the end it might prove impossible for Iscor, owing to high costs and other factors, to establish it there The hon. member for Witbank referred to Escom, and he wanted to know whether it was advisable for Escom to supply electricity at places where it was also being supplied by local authorities. It was pointed out in the Borckenhagen report that if one organization could eventually supply the whole country, this would entail major advantages. In that case the best use could be made of large nuclear power stations, which could supply much more power at a much lower cost per unit. At present long distance transmissions renders it possible for power to be transmitted over hundreds and even thousands of miles; it reduces coal railage; it saves manpower; and therefore it entails many advantages. The principle of the recommendation contained in the Borckenhagen report is therefore basically correct. But we nevertheless find that at times there are clashes with certain local authorities, particularly when they want to expand in a new direction, and then we have to try to find a solution. Usually the local authority wants to make a profit out of the supply of electric power. Escom’s task is that of supplying electric power on a utility basis at the cheapest price, but Escom is quite prepared to supply that power to the local authority in bulk. Then the local authority can see to the intra-urban reticulation and distribution, and if they want to make a profit on that, it is basically their own affair. The hon. member referred to the fact that there were cases where local authorities took over from Escom and where Escom continued to supply the large enterprises. Sometimes it is unremunerative for large enterprises to pay the high prices charged by the local authority, particularly when the local authority wants to make a large profit on the supply of power. They regard it as a source of revenue for subsidizing the taxpayer, and large enterprises are often regarded as a good milch cow for that purpose. But hon. members will appreciate that an industry is often located at a specific place for the very reason that power is cheap there, and when such an industry is a major consumer of power, its remunerativeness and even its continued existence at a certain place may be affected adversely by a higher cost factor. But we shall try to iron out the existing problems. Last year we had talks with the representatives of the United Municipal Executive. They have approached us again for talks later this year, and on that occasion we shall meet in order to see whether it is not possible for us to iron out a few more basic problems.

Both the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the problems arising in False Bay. There is a clash of interests, especially between those of tourists and those of the fishermen. It appears that at certain times, False Bay is an important source of sardine catches to the fishing industry. In certain years as much as 17 per cent of their total catches are caught there. I do not wish to go into the clash that has arisen between these two groups. They have made representations to the commission of inquiry appointed in this regard. The Department of Industries had talks with both of these groups, and these groups have now reached an agreement. It is a compromise agreement, and in terms of the agreement there will be more direct lines of demarcation in False Bay. The problem was that certain net-fishermen and even trawlers were forbidden to come within two miles of the coast, but in many cases it was impossible to prove this distance of two miles in a court of law, because a boat does not remain stationary.

In all cases?

I say it is impossible to prove it. Nobody has ever succeeded in proving it, in spite of charges that were made. It entails too many technical problems. Even in South West, where a case was heard recently, after very good observations had been made, the prosecution could not prove whether or not the boats in question had been within 12 miles of the coast line. It remains a difficult task to prove this, and that is why we proposed that fixed lines should now be drawn between certain points. We hope that the bodies and persons involved in this matter will lend their full co-operation. As I said, the talks that took place gave rise to a compromise being reached, which I regard as an equitable plan. In the main this plan amounts to the forbidden area being demarcated by way of straight lines so as to help the fishermen as well as the patrol service, the complainants and the informers. The object is to include in the forbidden area, in as far as it is possible, the waters that are shallower than 20 fathoms, and then to demarcate this area with buoys, the lights of which it will also be possible to see at night. This area can be defined more or less as follows: A straight line from Cape Point to a point off Simonstown and then from Simonstown to Seal Island; then from Seal Island to Gordon’s Bay where it joins a line from Miller’s Point to Macassar Beach. It is, therefore, virtually a line from Simonstown to Seal Island to Gordon’s Bay. This is the inland line and it is intersected by a straight line outside the point of Pringle Bay up to Macassar and then from Cape Point up to a point near Seal Island. This forbidden strip is approximately two miles wide at Patrys Point, four miles at Simonstown, five and a half miles at Kalk Bay, four and a half miles at Kapteinsklip, four miles at the Strand, five miles at Gordon’s Bay, three and a half miles at Koeël Bay and one and a half miles at Pringle Bay. It will take us another 12 months to obtain these buoys. We still want to make a calculation of the costs, and the necessary funds will have to be obtained. I trust that these straighter lines will be more satisfactory and that they will enable the parties to adhere strictly to this agreement, whilst at the same time affording us a better opportunity of prosecuting where possible.

That is in fact an improvement, but it is very complicated.

The hon. member will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete closure of False Bay. But that would be unpractical. The representatives of these associations have agreed to this arrangement, and I hope that this will put an end to unnecessary agitation, agitation which at times have no other effect than merely to harm those areas and the people who have an interest in them, because it creates the impression that large-scale extermination of angling fish is taking place. However, our information indicates that there are no grounds for those allegations.

The Department has already obtained the necessary permission to extend inspection activities. Seven new inspectors will be appointed to assist in the guarding and preservation of our coasts.

Reference was made here to international agreements. The fact of the matter is that over the past year or so negotiations have been conducted in regard to an international agreement to limit the catch of pelagic fish, South Africa was also present as an interested observer. Certain steps have already been taken, but until a general agreement has been reached by all the interested parties, it is impossible to disclose all the terms of the agreement. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that a great deal of progress has been made in regard to these parties’ attempts at drafting a convention in regard to control over pelagic fish.

The hon. member for Groblersdal referred to the problem of the oil pollution of our coastal waters caused by the tankers. I can inform him that there were talks amongst various Government Departments, provincial and local authorities, oil companies, as well as other interests, and that agreement was reached in regard to certain forms of legislation in terms of which certain powers are granted for the purpose of coping with this problem. There is virtually unanimity as to the terms of this agreement, and in the course of this Session I expect to introduce legislation for the purpose of coping with this problem.

Various hon. members referred to border area development. It is interesting to see that the Opposition, too, is almost supporting border area development now. Apparently the hon. members for Pietermartizburg (District), East London (City) and King William’s Town are concerned about this matter because progress is in fact being made in that sphere, whereas there used to be a certain measure of coolness on the part of the Opposition in respect of these important developments in their constituencies. They used to adopt an attitude of indifference to this development. The hon. member for East London (North) quoted from his maiden speech, in which he pleaded for industrial development there, but that definitely does not mean to say that he pleaded for industrial development in terms of ’ border area development. His party has consistently opposed that sort of development, but now they, too, are supporting it. They discouraged this development and did everything possible to oppose it. But in spite of that progress was made in this sphere. Three areas have developed, i.e. Hammarsdale, Pietermaritzburg City and Rosslyn, just outside Pretoria. These three areas have now almost been developed fully, or can develop further under their own steam. It was for that reason that the Permanent Committee indicated in its latest report, which was tabled here, that since these areas could now develop under their own steam, the Committee was much more selective as regards the forms of assistance and the concessions granted. Attention is now being given to establishing new areas, because it is a known fact that industrial areas in which there is progress, lures other industries there, whereas backward areas merely remain backward. That is why special attention is being given to certain areas in particular. One of them is in the vicinity of Richard’s Bay, where it has already been decided to build a harbour and an aluminium foundry. The smelter is one of the projects which has been placed on the waiting list because of inflationary conditions. It is clear that the proposed harbour and the railway connection to Richard’s Bay—for which funds have already been appropriated—as well as the new smelter, will give rise to major development there.

In addition there is the Tugela basin, where there are a few places which lend themselves to industrial development, and the same applies to East London, King William’s Town, Berlin and Queenstown and Pietersburg. Several hon. members pleaded for larger concessions to be made to these border industries. The Permanent Committee is in fact considering this and formulating proposals in terms of which more assistance can be granted to industrialists who wish to establish themselves in these border areas. These matters will be considered shortly. The representations made here to-day, will also be considered thoroughly.

Border area development remains important, since it is industrial development in a white area, it is white capital and white enterprise, but the aim is to make use of Bantu labourers who are housed in their own Bantu areas. By these means the Bantu’s own development is also being stimulated.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) referred to the following fact mentioned in the report, namely that there is an annual increase of 35,000 in the labour force of the Bantu homelands. He said that we should annually make provision for 35,000 people in our industries. However, I do not think this calculation is correct, because all of them are not always used in South Africa’s industries. At the moment our industries assimilate approximately a quarter of them. When we consider, therefore, that provision has to be made for 9,000 or 10,000 as against the average of 5,000 assimilated in our industries in recent years, then this is an indication that progress is in fact being made. When industries of this sort develop on the borders, they will stimulate the economy of the Bantu within their own borders. There will be a demand for certain services, and there will be opportunities for them to act in professional capacities as well, so that it will also have a stimulating effect on their own areas. We are committed to this policy and we shall give more attention to it in future. In future more assistance will be granted to them than was the case in the past.

The hon. member for Hillbrow quoted from an article written by a certain Mr. Ben Roux in which he made certain accusations. He said the following—

It is a charge the hon. member here, or he quoted it from what had been written by a certain Ben Roux, who is allegedly an authority in this field. However, I do not think he made a thorough study of the matter, much less of the laws, much less of what actually happens. The hon. member referred to Iscor, Sasol, Escom and even to Foscor. Nobody can allege that the institution of Escom was not the right policy, that it should be on a utility basis and not be undertaken by private enterprise. Cheaper power is being supplied in that way, and by doing so Escom renders excellent service to our country. The statement was made here that Iscor was being protected, that the Government was going out of its way to afford protection to Iscor. But Iscor is experiencing competition to-day. There is, for instance, the Highveld Steel undertaking. Even in respect of the foreign countries, Iscor is not being afforded any protection, because there is no tariff protection as far as steel is concerned. Government policy in this regard has in fact been to supply steel to the South African consumer at the cheapest possible price. Since 1952 there has been no increase in the price of steel, except when an import levy of R4.75 per ton was imposed. That is all. Otherwise Iscor has developed into an industry which has been supplying cheap steel to South Africa. Let us see what happened in other countries. Since 1952 the price of steel in the United Kingdom has increased by 45 per cent, in the U.S.A, by 43 per cent, in Australia by 63 per cent, but in South Africa by merely 5.7 per cent. This is proof that Iscor has succeeded in building up an efficient industry.

Reference was made here to ministerial supervision, i.e. that nobody could expect there to be ministerial supervision and that consequently directors are appointed. But the objection was in fact to too many ministerial powers, and now the opposite is being alleged here, namely that there is inadequate ministerial supervision.

Reference was made here to poor financial statements, to unverifiable annual reports and to rudimentary annual financial statements. The Act makes provision for outside accountants to be appointed annually. This work is being done by private entrepreneurs. These corporations are subject to the same measures that apply to other companies. I really think that a lot of the statements made here to-day cannot be proved, statements which are altogether flippant and which, in fact, do not do justice to the real business approach practised by these private corporations.

Mr Chairman, there are a number of points in the hon. the Minister’s reply with which we are not satisfied. Most of them can remain for other occasions, but because of the urgency of the situation I do not think it is right that this Vote should be allowed to go through without the Opposition expressing its keen disappointment at the Minister’s statement that compensation for those who are losing as a result of devaluation of sterling, what they will suffer in respect of their exports, is not going to be on a basis of full compensation. The original statements were that in deserving cases suitable steps would be taken to enable exporters who had suffered as a result of devaluation to keep their place in the markets overseas. When one has regard first of all to the assistance being given to our chief competitors, particularly Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and the Argentine, one realizes how unfavourable our exporters’ position is. One realizes how difficult it is going to be for exporters to keeD their place in those markets in the event of the principle of full compensation not being accepted. The hon. the Minister said auite clearly in reply to a question from me that the principle of a 100 per cent compensation is not acceptable. We know that there may be no fixed formula for the different export products, and it may be that some are going to be better treated than others. It may be that citrus, having got three-quarters compensation promised, and something in respect of canned orange juice, may be better off than the three-quarters compensation would make it appear. But there are going to be other products that are going to find it very difficult indeed to maintain their position in the market as against competition from other countries, which have been assisted by their governments, unless more is done by this Government. The hon. the Minister was at pains to tell us that our total exports were R1,355 million last year, and probably would go up a R100 million this year. What is the value of the exports to Great Britain affected by devaluation? Probably the total will be in the region of R70 million to R80 million. And what is the loss? It seems a small sum to be quibbling about when the interest of so many sections of our agricultural community and our co-operative organizations, particularly the canning organizations, may be involved. Already some of them are suffering as a result of the rises in costs controlled by the Government as opposed to the costs which they can control themselves. Already some of them are very unhappy indeed in respect of the freight contract entered into on their behalf by the Government. So far there has been no indication whatever as to what the position is going to be next year. There are vague assurances that something will be done this year. It will not be full compensation. It will vary tn respect of the different products, and no farmer or canning industry knows where he or it is at the present time. The hon. the Minister said that he believed that, as a result of devaluation, prices would rise in Britain in three or four years’ time. Some people say it is going to take a great deal longer than that, and they want to know whether this sort of assistance is going to be continued. The hon. the Minister, by his statement to-day, seems to me to place a number of farming industries in great jeopardy and a number of canners in an extremely difficult position.

I do not think it is right that this Vote should go through without the extreme disappointment of the Opposition being expressed in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, there is one fact which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition basically does not take into account, and that is the fact that South Africa’s position as far as the value of its monetary unit is concerned, has remained unchanged. What has changed, is the value of British sterling. They are the ones who devalued. Devalutation is a risk which any exporter must accept. The hon. member is pleading here for full payment. The dollar was under very great pressure recently. Does this mean that, if the dollar is devalued, exporters to the United States and to other countries which devalue along with it, should receive full compensation?

What about the guarantees which you gave after devaluation? The people have been waiting for six to nine months now.

Allow me to complete my statement. I shall get round to that as well. The franc is under pressure at the moment. Does this mean that if the franc is devalued, the same must happen, i.e. that the exporter must be granted full compensation?

You gave a guarantee. Now you are running away from it.

I shall come to that. Do not run away. My argument remains that, if you want to use the argument that exporters to Britain must be compensated in full, then it means that in all cases of devaluation, now or in the future, the exporter must be compensated in full should those countries devalue. I consider it an impossible task to give such an undertaking. The fact remains that there are exporters who can insure themselves against that. There are other cases in which it entails hardship, and therefore we shall give attention to it. The hon. member asked here what the position would be next year. But the fact remains that there is already an average increase in prices of 3.5 per cent in respect of certain goods on the market. There are cases in which the prices of certain of our export goods have immediately been adapted to that. In other cases it varies, also in the case of the deciduous fruit industry. As far as grapes are concerned, the price has increased, while that of apples has decreased. Must we now say what our policy in respect of that is going to be next year? Surely that is an impossible task. Now the hon. member links it to the statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I read it out here a while ago. The hon. the Minister of Finance did not say that the exporters were going to be compensated in full in all cases. Let me just read it to the hon. the Leader again:

That is what the hon. the Minister of Finance said. He did not say that their losses would be compensated in full. Here we have one case which has already been dealt with. It was done in full consultation with representatives of the industries concerned. The case of the canning industry has been investigated very thoroughly, but finality has not yet been reached. However, can one say at this stage what the compensation is going to be, before the picture has been completed? Surely it is impossible to do so at this stage. But they know that they will be compensated. The same applies in these other cases where they are being consulted in conjunction with the Departments concerned to see what their final problems are going to be. But before the final problem is known, it is quite impossible to say what will happen. The hon. member referred to the freight agreements and said that unfavourable arrangements had been made. I should very much like to know whether the hon. member is in favour of the agreement being cancelled? The fact of the matter is that the airlines serving serve South Africa as far as both imports from and exports to Europe are concerned, entered into an agreement in respect of a freight tariff according to which they may not increase the tariffs without the Government’s consent. We thereby have a certain measure of protection. They cannot simply increase prices. But they are also only guaranteed a certain revenue, namely a return of 8 per cent on their invested capital. They are therefore restricted in that regard.

Plus costs.

Yes, they are restricted in that regard, but if South Africa as far as the export of fruit is concerned, had not entered into that conference agreement, it would not have been able to rely on the regular service which we have to-day. We are quite prepared to cancel this agreement if it should appear to be in the interests of South Africa. We are not bound by it. It is reviewed every two years. But we think that, as the position stands—and the figures are studied as far as possible by cost accountants—we are to-day receiving a service upon which we can rely, and a service which adapts itself to our circumstances. I am not at all convinced that we would be better off if we had to rely on irregular services only. It is possible that at times cargo space would be available on certain ships and that they can offer a cheaper tariff, but it is not a freight tariff which they can offer for all our export goods. They could not exist on that. But if it should ever appear that these conference lines are not in the interests of South Africa, we can take the necessary steps. We are not committed to them. But at this stage we think that it is in fact in our interests. For that reason negotiations are entered into from time to time. We are also protecting our export industry so that the lines cannot simply charge tariffs which can decrease our imports and unnecessarily increase our export tariffs. That is why our tariffs on certain of our export goods, for example fruit, are lower. The 7 per cent increase which has been placed on other freight in general, has not been placed on the export of fruit. Protection has indeed been afforded, to our export industry as well, in respect of fruit. I think that the statement which the hon. member made here, i.e. that we did not take into consideration the interests of the industries when we renewed these freight tariffs recently and agreed to increases, is unfounded. Then he must also admit that after devaluation there was a decrease again in certain respects. This is a situation which we are watching carefully, and thus far we think that it is in the interests of the South African exporters in general.

Mr. Chairman, I think we appreciate the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as regards the problem of the canners. We are all concerned about that, but the Minister of Finance, as the Minister of Economic Affairs has just said, did not make any definite promise at that time. We should bear the fact in mind that the canner must be able to prove his case and to state his losses clearly. There is not a single canner at the present moment who has sold his whole production and who can submit a figure to us. At the moment pineapples are still being canned. I only want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be aware of this. I agree with him that the amount may possibly be quite insufficient, but the sympathy which the canners have received from the Department is praiseworthy. Moreover, they trust that the Department will remain sympathetic throughout and will give assistance under the circumstances. At the moment, however, it is impossible to mention any figure as representing the actual losses suffered as a result of Britain’s devaluation of sterling. Many of the canners have diverted their products to Western Germany at slightly better prices. The loss is not 14.3 per cent. In many cases the loss is 6 or 7 per cent only. It is an enormous task to form a final and proper picture as far as this matter is concerned. Consequently I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may be somewhat hasty if he wants a definite reply now.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to deal with containerization or not?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi referred to the problem of containerization. He said that we had dealt with this matter in a very casual way and at a very late stage. The fact of the matter is that the whole idea of containerization took shape in the past year after instructions had been given that new ships were to be built according to these specifications. Some of them were even used to convey war supplies to South Vietnam. The idea of its being used on a world basis has only recently been adopted. A great deal has been written about it and there have been many symposiums, conferences and commissions about it. The commissions’ reports on it are already available. As far as South Africa is concerned, it is a matter which was investigated by the Department of Transport long ago, because this Department is charged not only with internal transport, but also with our harbours. The fact remains that if containerization is introduced on a large scale, it would mean the rebuilding of harbours, the use of greater cranes and the building of new ships. It would also mean that the railway system would have to adapt itself to it because the articles to be transported by way of containerization must be containerized at the outset if possible. They must be loaded and transported in containerized form. At the destination suitable harbours must also be available where they can be off-loaded. This is therefore a problem which must be considered in its entirety. It also depends on what commodities are to be exported. As far as fruit is concerned, it is perhaps not as easy as in the case of certain of our other export commodities. The hon. member will agree with me that it is a very extensive problem. We discussed this matter before with the conference lines and we pointed out to them that this revolution was taking place in the world and that they should pay attention to it. They then informed us that they were fully aware of it because Union Castle, which is also one of the interested parties, was already introducing it on other lines in the world. They made a thorough investigation, inter alia, on the line to Australia as well. Their advice to us more than a year ago was that the time had not yet arrived for a commission to be appointed to investigate all the facets of the matter. A month or so ago they told us that they thought that the time was opportune. They said that sufficient information was available about the problems in this connection as experienced in other parts of the world. A great deal of progress was made with the Australian report, which indicates that freight which is at present handled by 80 ships, can perhaps be handled by only eight. However, there are many problems connected with this. There is trade union opposition on the part of labour. To sum this matter up, it has been decided to establish a joint committee, because the Railways already has all the required information in connection with harbours and transport. The shipping lines, however, will also have to adapt themselves to it. As far as money is concerned, this switchover will cost hundreds of millions of rands. Very thorough consideration will have to be given as to whether it is economic and practicable to us to go in for it. We have already made a great deal of progress with the composition and the terms of reference of this commission. On the basis of the information already available, it will be able to issue its report fairly soon. As far as the attendance of international discussions is concerned, arrangements have already been made for our trade representative in London to attend that conference.

Will we be able to get a copy of that report?

No.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to reply to the questions I put to him in regard to the discrepancy in the statistics given in last year’s report and this year’s report in regard to the employment of Bantu in the border areas?

Mr. Chairman, the report of the Permanent Committee which was Tabled, reads as follows—

Therefore, according to this calculation, 104,000 Bantu are employed in the border areas at this stage. This is according to the latest report.

Is that in the Bantu areas?

No, in the border areas. I think the hon. member quoted from South African Digest which gave a different figure.

No, it is the same number, but it differs from the report of last year.

Unfortunately it has not been possible for me up to now to check on the figure furnished in the report of last year. But according to our information, published in the latest report, this is the correct figure.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 43—Labour, R8,520,000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? To-day I do not wish to fight with the hon. the Minister. I want to invite the hon. the Minister to discuss with us across the floor of the House what is probably the most difficult and most intractable problem that faces South Africa now and that will face it in the future. The hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that South Africa has to-day reached a peak of development and that it is straining every muscle to leap forward to an even greater future. Yet we find our economy hamstrung and threatened with paralysis because we cannot use our labour resources to the best advantage. The time has come that we in South Africa should face the facts. In facing the facts we should ask ourselves how, in circumstances that must lead to inevitable change in the labour pattern of South Africa, we can best protect the interests of all the workers, but especially of the white workers, who feel themselves embattled and that their security and standard of living is threatened.

I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say that we have acquired prosperity in South Africa, industrial leadership as well as leadership in the economic field generally in Africa, because we have had the insight and the ability to use all our human labour resources for the development of our country. According to all the economists, including Government economists, we have set ourselves up on an irreversible course. On that course we can no longer think in terms of economic separation, that the things which our manufacturing industry, our agriculture and our mines contribute to the wealth of South Africa can be done without using non-white labour, Bantu labour specifically. One can quote many authorities to support this. There is sufficient authority for this statement to satisfy the hon. the Minister and any person who is objective in his approach to this problem. Take, for instance, the reports on the economic development programmes for South Africa issued by the Economic Council attached to the Prime Minister’s department. All its projections are based on an increase, a growing increase, in the proportion of non-white labour, of Bantu labour specifically, employed in industry in South Africa. We must remember that the first economic development programme was published in 1964 and covered the period 1964-1969. In preparing this first programme and in considering all the facts upon which their expectations were based, they had, as intelligent men, to take into account the fact that we have a government in power which tries to follow a policy of separate development in the economic field as well. Thinking on that basis, these experts advising the Prime Minister could not escape the conclusion that our dependence upon non-white labour, and upon Bantu labour specifically, will continue for as long as they can see into the future. About 80 per cent of our total labour force in South Africa today consists of non-whites, and and about 72 per cent of the labour force in manufacturing industry alone consist of non-whites. And all authorities agree that this percentage will grow. As a matter of fact, the facts available to us show that the number of non-whites in employment is growing, thus proving the projections of the E.D.P. in 1964 to be correct. In March this year the hon. Minister of Planning replied to a question which was put to him by the hon. member for Port Natal. The figures the Minister gave in reply to that question are most interesting. These show that white workers employed by private industries and by public bodies—such as in the Government service, in the S.A. Railways, in the Post Office, in control boards, in provincial administrations and in local authorities—increased during the period 1965 to 1967 by 43,000, 21,328 of whom were absorbed by Government and semi-Government bodies. The number of non-white workers during that same period, however, increased by almost 120,000, 53,000 of whom were absorbed in Government and semi-Government service. This shows that the proportion of non-white workers in our industries and in Government and semi-Government employ is, despite what we may think and protest, growing by the day and that we have not yet found it possible to arrest, let alone reverse, this trend. Looking at the latest report of the Department of Labour one can find equally interesting figures. At the end of 1966, for instance, 1,127,141 workers were employed in industries in South Africa: 289,385 Whites; 186,480 Coloureds; 56,772 Asiatics; and 594,576 Bantu. Three years previously, i.e. at the end of 1963, the total labour force in South Africa counted 903,545: 232,718 Whites; 146,172 Coloureds 44,740 Asiatics; and 479,796 Bantu. This means that while white workers in registered factories increased by 57,000 in those same three years the number of non-whites increased by 167,000. Of this increase almost 115,000 were Bantu. For these figures I have to thank the hon. the Minister’s Department of Labour. They are certainly most revealing. The Government tells us that they are concerned about this. We hear, especially from the voluble Deputy Minister for Bantu Affairs, that it is the Government’s hope and intention to make South Africa’s economy, and especially South Africa’s industry, less dependent upon black labour. In fairness one must say that they do have some suggestions and even laws on the Statute Book to try to reverse the use of black labour especially in our existing cities. One of the major solutions they offer is the employment of black people in industries established and to be established on the borders of our reserves. Does that solve the problem the Government sees? I must concede immediately that the establishment of boder industries and the employment of Bantu labour from the adjoining reserves does assist in alleviating the social problems that arise when one has to bring large numbers of black workers from their existing homelands to the cities where one has to house them and supply them with all the amenities of modern living. There is some degree of relief in regard to that problem in the policy of border industries. It does, however, not solve the political problem. It does not solve the ultimate economic problem, which is the dependence of South African industries on Bantu labour. As we have said so often in this House, whether you house the Natives employed in white industries in Soweto or Nyanga, or whether you house them in the areas adjacent to East London or Pinelands, you do not change the fact that these are white industries depending for their production on the use of black labour. That is the first fact I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Labour that we should face. I want to say to-day, and I know that I cannot be contradicted, that the more the border industry policy succeeds, the greater the speed at which we employ black labour in industry will become. You might recall that we looked at this aspect very acutely quite recently when we discussed housing on the vote of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. We discussed the question of prefabricated buildings with him, and he said that one of the solutions to the labour problem in the building industry was to erect prefabricated houses, but to let the prefabrication take place in factories on the borders of the reserves and then to bring these semi-prepared houses to sites in the white cities and to have them erected there by white labour. The effect of this will be that when you take the building industry as a whole the proportion of black workers to white workers will increase in favour of the black workers. You may shift them to the border industries, but they will still be working to erect houses in the white areas. Housing in South Africa will still be dependent upon black labour. That, I think, is the essential fact that we have to face. The policy in pursuance of which the hon. the Minister of Planning and the hon. the Minister of Labour are now prepared to bend our economy as was threatened years ago, is not the policy that will make South Africa’s economy, prosperity and growth less dependent on black labour than it is to-day.

The other solution that we have heard, but which we do not hear so often these days, is a solution that was much loved by the hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration. I am not sure whether he consulted the hon. the Minister of Labour before he made these speeches, because it concerns the hon. the Minister of Labour. That solution was a greater degree of automation. I think that we must be careful in dealing with this matter. Automation cannot be taken very far in South Africa unless we develop a very large internal market which will make the methods of mass production applicable to the South African economy. Unless one uses more and more black labour in better jobs and pay them better, one cannot create an internal market in South Africa which will make automation possible. The very thought of automation becomes impossible if one wants automation at the expense of the use of black labour. This is not a solution. It would be wiser for us in South Africa to stay with the facts and not to indulge in dreams and fantasies.

One of the resultant facts from this major fact which I mentioned is that the line of demarcation in industry in respect of the work done by white people because of the conventional or statutory colour bar is going higher and higher. As it goes higher the proportion of white workers becomes smaller and smaller and the proportion of black workers and other non-white workers doing semiskilled work is becoming larger. We have seen this phenomenon taking place before our very eyes, namely in the South African Railways. The hon. the Minister of Transport has had to confess in this House that under his administration 16,000 jobs formerly done by white workers are now being done by non-white workers. We have recently seen this in the mines. After there were tremendous difficulties with the Mine Workers’ Union, those problems were overcome and as a result there has been a re-allocation of jobs on the mines which makes it possible for Bantu workers to do work that they could not do before. We have seen this in Iscor and we have heard Mr. Lukas van den Berg express great concern over the fact that he himself has had to agree that more non-white workers should be used in jobs formerly done by Whites. He expressed the expectation that this will be a temporary arrangement. This is a futile dream. The work will never go back to the white workers. Once it has been taken over by black workers, as I will show in another context, the takeover is final. This is also happening in the Post Office. We see white postmen delivering letters in Johannesburg, but black postment delivering telegrams. That is the logic of it. We recently saw it in the huge agreement on behalf of more than 350,000 workers which was entered into by the steel industry of South Africa, through the Industrial Council for the Steel Industry. There was an agreement completely re-allocating and redemarcating jobs, with the result that a large number of jobs that have been traditionally reserved for white people have now been graded at such a low rate of pay—this is a point that should be noted—that no white man can do that work and live at a white man’s standard. In other words, these jobs have gone to non-Whites and even if there was to be a depression to-morrow, there jobs will not go back to the white people because the white man cannot live on the wage that has now been determined. We have seen this in the building industry, Government and municipal departments and in every sphere of South Africa’s activity. More and more jobs are being taken over, necessarily and inescapably because of the shortage of manpower, by non-white workers in our industries. Indeed, we are getting a strange phenomenon in our labour relations in South Africa, namely that the rate for the job is disappearing in favour of a new principle that I can only call the rate for the race. Jobs to-day are determined in such a way, and wages fixed in such a way by the Wage Board, that a job is only available to and can only be filled by a particular race. Once you have a job where the rate for the race has been fixed, it becomes a rate for that race and no other race, and certainly not for a race at a higher standard of living.

You have got it correct.

Yes. I think that we have to accept that these changes are coming about under a Nationalist Party Government, under an apartheid government, and under a separate development government and that they are coming about in a form which makes them a permanent and an immutable part of the economic organization of South Africa. These jobs are permanently lost to the whites. The only time that whites may want to do those jobs again will be in a time of depression. But in a depression there is a tendency to cut wages. No employer will then raise wages in certain jobs in order to employ unemployed whites in them. We have to face up to this, and hon. members opposite may squirm in their seats and grumble and complain as much as they like, but this is a fact that they cannot escape. It is a fact as large and solid as a ball which one can feel and touch.

Another interesting result of this change in the labour pattern of South Africa is that, certainly in the opinion of the leaders of the white trade unions, the bargaining power of the white man is decreasing. We have to face up to this fact. They fear that they are weakening in the power which they wield when it comes to facing their employers across the table in the process of collective bargaining. That fear is expressed in various ways. Some trade union leaders see a great conspiracy to-day on the part of the employers to emphasize the shortage of manpower with an ulterior motive. The ulterior motive they see is to compel the greater use of the cheap black and other non-white labour in the place of white workers. This attitude is part of the insecurity the white worker has to-day. It is part of the fear he has for his job, because he appreciates that his bargaining power is decreasing. This fear was well expressed recently in the annual report of the Engine Drivers, Firemen’s and Operators Association through Mr. Ken du Preez, the Secretary. I do not want to quote what he said, but anyone who is interested can see how they feel. It was published in a newspaper on the 15th May and the psychological insight it gives one into the insecurity of the white worker as his bargaining power decreases, because he is becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the total labour force in South Africa, is something that has great educational value for all of us. This has of course been stated much more directly by other trade union leaders. Mr. E. H. McCan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union cannot be called a liberal. He is a conservative trade union leader and this is what he said on the 9th or 10th May—

This has happened almost completely in certain industries like the furniture industry and the garment industry. It is becoming more and more difficult for white trade unions to bargain in the interests of white workers, because their employers and the Minister can simply say to them in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, that they are not representative of the workers in that undertaking, industry or area. That is another problem which we have to face realistically.

Against this background one of the most dangerous features of the labour situation is the Government’s policy to internationalize labour negotiations in South Africa. It is the Government’s policy, to have our industries in the white man’s area on the borders of the Bantu areas and then to have a labour force domiciled on the black man’s side of the border where, eventually, there will be independent governments so that labour negotiations between the workers and employers will not be between the trade union and the employers organization, but between government and government. Once the Government allows that to develop—and develop it they must because it is their policy—the position of the white man in the process of collective bargaining will be powerless and pitiable indeed. It is a most dangerous policy which this Government is contemplating. That is why, even among trade unionists to-day, there is a growing demand that the Bantu should be allowed to organize themselves. This does not only come from the Trade Union Council of South Africa, but even from members of the Confederation of Trade Unions. Even a conservative man who is well-known to the hon. the Minister of Transport, namely Mr. Liebenberg, suggested that they should be given media and organizations through which they can bargain with their employers. He has recently stated that it is an impossible situation that these people cannot bargain. I do not want to go into this, however. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is the worry of hon. members opposite? They make very much noise, but they look most miserable to me. I think the Minister should react to the suggestion of Mr. Liebenberg, which greatly appeals to me, and that is that our Settlement of Bantu Disputes Act may be due for revision and that the works committees in the various factories should be reformed so that they can take part in the processes of collective bargaining. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s reaction to a thought like that. The point that the Minister has to face is this, that as the Minister of Planning succeeds in stopping new Bantu from coming into our industrial areas, the existing industrial areas, so there will be a premium placed on the value of the work of the Bantu who are in our white industrial areas, and obviously it would pay their employers, because of their scarcity value, to use them more efficiently. That is about the only good thing I can see as a result of the Minister’s policy. And the employers will train them better and use them better and will use them more efficiently and give them more opportunities. But then they will become a more efficient labour force and they will know that they are entitled to greater rewards and they will ask for them. What is the attitude of the Government to that? We know what the attitude of the Government is in regard to the border industries, but what is its attitude going to be in regard to the growingly sophisticated labour force that will remain in the white cities of South Africa as their policy progresses? Looking at the hon. the Minister of Planning, it is obvious that he has never given this matter a thought. But I think it is time for the Minister of Labour to give these matters a thought, because the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Bantu Administration are running away with the Minister of Labour. They have a firm hold on him and we do not know where they are taking him, and I think the time has come for the Minister of Labour to have a serious discussion with them about these things. I should like to know from the Minister what his attitude is going to be. When I spoke just now about organizing black labour, there were exclamations of horror from the other side, but I want to ask the Minister what happens if, as the Bantu areas develop to self-rule, they are granted, in accordance with the philosophy of the Government, everything in their area that the white man can wish for himself in his area. One of the things that they will wish for in their area is the right to form complete trade unions after the model of those of the white people in white South Africa, unions which can bargain with the employers on the other side of the border in terms of the laws of their own country. What will the Minister say to that? What will be the effect of that internationalization of our labour relations in South Africa?

What is the Minister’s reaction to the fact that the low wages being paid in these border industries are lasting so long? We have had the excuse for paying low wages in the border industries, much lower than the wages paid for the same job in the white area, namely that this labour is raw and unskilled and has to be trained until it is sufficiently productive. But the type of work they do, does not remain unskilled and unproductive for ever, and some of these border industries have been carrying on for years. It is a long time since Prof. Sakkies Fourie first raised the question of the low wages paid in factories in the Eastern Transvaal. When are these wages going to be revised? The trade unions are asking that there should be a regular revision of the wages paid in these border areas to prevent unfair competition between those industries and the industries in the white area and also to see that we shall never be open to the accusation that we are using sweated labour in South Africa. What is the Minister’s policy on this matter? I shall be very glad if he will tell us.

I think I can assume, because of the undoubted intelligence of the Minister, that he agrees with this side of the House that changes in our labour pattern are inevitable. I know the hon. the Minister of Transport agrees with it because he acts accordingly; he is doing a great deal to change the labour pattern in South Africa by setting an example on the S.A. Railways and Harbours: he cannot help himself; he is just being sensible. I know it is a strange thing for a member of the Cabinet, but I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Transport for being sensible in accepting the position and in co-operating with the inevitable. But I want to know what the attitude of the Department of Labour and of the Government is in this matter. This pattern is changing, and we know that job reservation is a dead letter. I do not think we have had a single new job reservation during the past years; there was none in 1966 or in 1967 as far as I can remember. I know there are more exemptions than there are groups of people affected by the job reservations which are in force to-day.

I want to make some suggestions to the Minister and I shall be grateful if he will react. I want to know whether he will agree that as this labour pattern inevitably changes, stimulated by the example of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and others, like the Minister of Community Development—will he agree with us that that change must be so organized that all the workers of South Africa will derive benefit from the fact that productivity in South Africa must increase as the result of those changes? Will he agree with this side of the House when I say that we should educate our white workers to see this change (and here I am glad to have on my side a very prominent South African like Mr. Hugo, the General Manager of Railways; I do not like quoting officials here, but he did make a public statement on this issue) not as a threat to their security but as a tremendous and wonderful opportunity for their progress and their advancement as human beings; and whether we should not see to it that opportunity can be taken by our white workers by making their education and, where necessary, their reeducation, possible; that we must end the unhappy phenomenon in South Africa where we reap our human corn when it is still green and drag young children into the labour market when they can still benefit from further education? We must end the shortage of teachers; the bottlenecks in the training for artisans should end in South Africa. What is the Minister’s reaction to that? What is his reaction if we say to him from this side of the House that we should prevent any opportunities for unscrupulous employers to exploit the situation by bringing into an industry workers at a low rate of pay at the expense of workers who are accustomed to a higher rate of pay? And when we say that whenever competition is possible between worker and worker, we should observe the principle of the rate for the job, what is the Minister’s reaction? What is the Minister’s reaction when I say to him that we should consider, as Gen. Smuts did in the case of the Natives Building Workers’ Act of 1946, where the white workers concerned were given a guarantee that for a certain period of years they would be guaranteed employment at real wages in the national interest … [Time expired.]

We listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville in which he tried again to-day to make a political debate of this debate on the Labour Vote. The hon. member for Yeoville tried to alarm the White workers by maintaining that the National Government was depriving them of their jobs by placing non-Whites in those jobs. But we have become accustomed to these tactics of his. Every year he presents us with this black picture of our industries becoming blacker. But in the end the hon. member said that he wanted to make a few suggestions to the Minister; he said that the workers shall listen to what Mr. Hugo had told them, that they should avail themselves of this opportunity to make progress now, but is the hon. member not the one who, the moment any concessions are made as on the Railways for example, makes a great fuss about those concessions? The Opposition makes a fuss about it if Bantu are employed by the Railways. They do not regard that as progress in this country; they only regard it as something which makes the labour market in the Republic of South Africa blacker. Sir, if there is one Department of which we can be proud in this country of ours, it is the Department of Labour. The Minister of Finance announced a few weeks ago that our reserves had exceeded R1 billion for the first time, and for that we owe not only the Minister of Finance and his Department a debt of gratitude, but the Minister of Labour and his Department an even greater debt of gratitude, because the Department of Labour is the very Department which in these times has brought about the labour peace which we are experiencing to-day. Had it not been for the labour peace prevailing in the Republic, we would not have been able to boast to-day about the wonderful progress we had made in the field of industrial development, and then the Minister of Finance would not have been able to boast about the reserves of R1 billion which we have to-day. Sir, how did we obtain this labour peace in this country? Was job reservation not the very means of doing so? Is job reservation not one of the mainstays of labour peace? What else is it if not that? But the hon. member wants to tell us to-day that we should change our labour pattern. Can we in this country ever contemplate changing our labour pattern?

You are doing so daily.

If we were to change our labour pattern, as the hon. member suggests, it could only lead to chaos; then we would plunge this country into the greatest disputes ever among the various groups in the Republic of South Africa. Sir, for the past 20 years the Minister of Labour and his Department have succeeded in maintaining labour peace among the various population groups. We should not tamper with that now; we should not allow the workers to be upset by anyone. Sir, I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is in favour of the Bantu establishing trade unions in the Republic of South Africa. Is he in favour of the Bantu organizing separate trade unions for themselves? The hon. member is silent now. Does he realize what it would mean if the Bantu were to be organized in trade unions? Does he realize the great danger which would then be in store for us?

They can organize themselves into trade unions to-day. What prevents them from doing so?

They cannot organize themselves into trade unions to-day as the hon. member would have it.

They can.

I want to ask the hon. member whether that is the policy of the United Party.

It is your policy.

No, it is not.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Let the hon. member tell me whether they would allow that. No, the hon. member will not allow that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister said at a meeting in Nigel that the Government was giving consideration to sending members of labour organizations overseas to put the point of view of the worker to overseas countries. This afternoon I want to make a very strong plea to the hon. the Minister of Labour that the idea expressed by the Prime Minister of sending the chairman, secretaries or committee members of labour organizations overseas, should be propagated strongly and that the opportunity of going overseas should be afforded the workers as well just as we as Members of Parliament are afforded the opporunity of doing so, in order to make contact there with workers of other countries and in order to bring the policy of this Government and the situation in this country to the attention of those workers. I feel that it has become essential for the workers to be afforded the opportunity of making contact with workers abroad in order to explain our policy. I welcome the idea which the hon. the Prime Minister expressed at Nigel and I want to make a plea to the Minister this afternoon that this idea should be promoted and that it should be put into practice as soon as possible, because it is essential that members of the various labour organizations should have the opportunity of making contact with one another both here in the Republic and abroad. It has already been proved in the Republic of South Africa that if one has a content labour force one can achieve wonders. The Department of Labour has succeeded here in the Republic in keeping our labour force content for the very reason that it looks after the interests of not only the white man in the country but also those of the non-Whites in all spheres. I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon that we should be careful that we do not knock down those pillars on which our industrial peace rests, because that will only lead to chaos in our industries, a state of affairs which none of us wants. The idea which is propagated at present by certain trade union leaders that the Bantu should be allowed to organize themselves into trade unions is a dangerous one. It is something which we should not encourage. It is the duty of the Government as well as the Opposition to discourage that idea and to wipe it out immediately as it cannot benefit us in any way.

Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister will conduct this discussion on a higher level than the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member contradicted himself in every possible way and made his contribution completely worthless by exhibiting his lack of knowledge of the subject. In suggesting that we have taken umbrage at any change in the labour pattern he was admitting firstly that that change was taking place. How can we object to the Minister of Transport making certain changes in his labour organization unless those changes take place? The hon. member therefore admits that under this Government changes are taking place. Then I want to correct him. We do not take exception to the fact that the Minister does that, and the Minister knows that we do not take exception to it, but we certainly use it politically to point out how the facts of the situation force members of the Government to depart from the impracticable theory of separate development in the economic sphere. When the Minister of Transport is responsible for keeping the trains running, then he cannot carry out the very policy for which the hon. member for Brakpan is pleading. That is the point we make and we are entitled to make it. For the hon. member to suggest that we are pleading for a change in the labour pattern is nonsense. I might as well plead then that every human being should be born with five fingers on each hand; That is a fact, and we are dealing with the facts as we find them. I am asking how we can face this changing pattern in such a way that all sections of our people will benefit by it and, above all, in such a way that our white workers will not have their position endangered as a result of the inevitable change. That was the whole gist of my argument, but the hon. member did not listen to it. The hon. member asks whether I am in favour of black trade unions. I am not in favour of black trade unions and I will explain it in a minute. But there is nothing in the laws in South Africa to prevent black people from organizing themselves into trade unions. Why then does he ask me that question? If the Government is against it why do they not stop it? There is no law in South Africa to prevent the existence or the formation of a black trade union. All that happened was that when the Industrial Conciliation Act was put before this Parliament by the old South African Party Government in 1924, before the first Nationalist Party Government came into power, black people were excluded from the definition of “employee”. Therefore they cannot use their trade unions in the process of collective bargaining, as White, Coloured or Indian trade unions are entitled to do. Why does the hon. member for Brakpan come with these suggestions and insinuations which have nothing to do with the merits of the case? They are suggestions and insinuations which amount to mere suspicion-mongering and which do not contribute one iota to the solution of this difficult and vexed problem.

Sir, I was asking the hon. the Minister to react to certain suggestions which represent the policy of the Opposition. I want him to react to a few more. It is our feeling that where this change is taking place—here I think the Minister and we are upon fairly close common ground—it is best brought about as a result of the workings of industrial democracy, as was the case in the steel industry, the Railways and many others. The changes in the pattern should be brought about as a result of agreement between organized employers and organized trade unions. We feel that that is the most important safeguard for the standards of the workers in South Africa. It is not that we are pleading for it. It has been happening. We think it is right. I would like to know rhe Minister’s reaction on that point.

I would like to know if the Minister will agree with me that, where this change is inevitably taking place in our labour field, it must happen, unfortunately, that some white workers, perhaps also some Coloured or Indian workers, will fall by the wayside, that they may not be able to meet the changes in the tempo of competition in our industrial life. I would like to know whether he will agree that in order to meet their position we should take special measures, and we should be agreed that special measures are necessary. I think, for example, that there should be spheres of protected work for people who, through physical or intellectual inability, cannot compete properly.

I also believe that the time has come that we should consider a minimum wage for those workers who are included in the definition of “employer” in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Is that what job reservation is for?

Exactly the same.

No. Job reservation gives the Minister powers in any industry in South Africa to reserve certain jobs for one race or the other. I am suggesting an extension of the principle of sheltered employment, as we had in South Africa for many years before job reservation was known.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will also agree that something must be done to bring about a regular revision of the wages paid in the border industries to prevent unfair competition and to confirm the Minister’s own argument that those lower wages are only justifiable while this labour is unsophisticated and cannot produce the same quantity of goods and give the same services as the more sophisticated labour in the existing areas.

Finally, I would like to know whether the Minister would not agree that, when all this is done, there may still be people who feel that they have been neglected, that they have lost and suffered as a result of the change. Therefore there should be some impartial body to which they can appeal for consideration of their grievances and for redress, or else suggestions to the Minister by an impartial body of how this redress should be brought about. Perhaps the Industrial Tribunal, about the functions of which we are very doubtful— since its establishment many of those doubts were justified—should be reformed to some extent to be an industrial court of appeal, to which aggrieved individuals and unions can apply for a redress of grievances or for an explanation of grievances, if they are not fully justified.

So, there I have tried to suggest some positive aspects of policy to the Minister, and I think this debate will become worthwhile if the Minister will on merits discuss these problems with us and also give us his views with regard to the suggestions I have made. I personally want to say that other members on this side of the House will deal with the same problems, with more specific aspects of his policy. But we on this side of the House are convinced that, in considering this problem of the inevitable, inescapable changing labour pattern in South Africa, we are facing one of the most crucial problems any government will have to face in South Africa and any nation has to face in the world. That is why we hope that our approach to this will be serious, and not as flippant as that of the hon. member for Brakpan.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Yeoville. Since he is the policy-maker of the United Party, I expected him this afternoon to offer us and the workers of South Africa something better than they are receiving from the National Party Government. But I am convinced that, just as in the past 20 years, the United Party will again be rejected by the worker of South Africa in the next 20 years, because the hon. member has nothing to offer. He did not tell us this afternoon what the United Party would do to protect the white worker against non-White competition. On the contrary, he attacked the steps the present Government is taking to protect the white worker. He did not tell the White worker that the United Party would give him something better. He said here that the non-white was already taking over the labour market, but what he did not tell us was that industrial development in this country was phenomenal during the past 20 years and that non-Whites had of necessity to be employed in industry. However, he did not prove that the ratio between Whites and non-Whites in industry had been disturbed. He must first prove this point before he can come along with this kind of argument in an effort to scare the white worker in that way. We want him to tell the worker of South Africa precisely what the policy of his party is so that the worker will know where he stands with the United Party. The United Party’s problem is the following: They are dealing with a patriotic white labour force in South Africa, a white labour force that has never been prepared to fall prey to socialistic liberalistic trade unionism, but that has remained loyal to and steadfast in the traditions of South Africa. The attitude of the white worker of South Africa is one of maintaining conservatism, and for that reason he has rejected the United Party at every election since 1948. If the United Party were to depend on the white worker of South Africa, it would be in the wilderness for ever and it would never have the privilege of endangering the position of the white workers as against that of the non-Whites. At the same time, the white worker is supporting the Government to an increasing extent to-day because he realizes that industrial development is to his advantage and that proper separation of the races is also to his advantage. He also knows that a good opportunity is being afforded him to progress. We in this House can only speak with the greatest praise of the white workers of the Republic of South Africa. They are responsible people; they are people who are prepared to work hard, because they are also patriotic, because they believe in “South Africa first”, and because they want to develop this country further and to achieve further industrial heights for South Africa. Last year when the hon. the Prime Minister called upon the workers of South Africa not to make irresponsible wage claims while the economy of the country was struggling with inflation, the workers of South Africa heeded that request, to the regret of the United Party and all the British newspapers in South Africa. They heeded that request notwithstanding all the incitement indulged in by the hon. member for Yeoville and those British newspapers in South Africa. For that reason we say we are grateful, and especially the industrialists of South Africa may be grateful that they have such a good white labour force to develop their industries, to allow them to flourish and thereby to fill their pockets with such great profits. The development of the Republic is largely indebted to that.

There is a certain matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and I want to ask him that greater attention be given to it. It is with sincere gratitude that we take cognizance of everything which his Department is doing in connection with aptitude and trade tests and vocational guidance. However, we believe that even greater heights can be achieved in the development of our country if these services can be extended further. We believe that the manpower shortage in this country can be reduced to a very large extent if the right worker is harnessed to the right position in order to do his best. Therefore we want to ask whether these aptitude tests cannot be extended further. We read in the annual report of the cumulative reports which are being received from the schools, reports which the Department can use with advantage when people seeking employment are interviewed. I want to ask that these aptitude tests be extended so that every boy in our counry has to undergo an aptitude test before he leaves school and, if possible, before he leaves primary school. The children can thus be channelled into the direction for which they show an aptitude. Many of our boys leave school at a very early age because they cannot make progress at school and because no indication is given to them as to what direction they should follow according to their particular capabilities and aptitudes. Our manpower shortage can be relieved to a large extent if those boys could be guided in the right direction when the time is ripe, and they will be trained for their future careers even before they go to high school. The vocational guidance which is being given is of a high standard. This publication is an excellent one. But people see it only when they are out of work and when they come to the Department for work. But very few people are subject to the tests. According to this annual report about 24,000 people were subject to these tests during that year and they made use of vocational guidance, that is both technical guidance and tests. I am convinced that if these services are extended to our primary schools, the situation would be greatly improved. It may now be said this kind of work is the task of the educationalists but it is, after all, the responsibility of the Department of Labour to ensure that we will have a highly skilled labour force in South Africa to do the work and to expand and develop our country further.

In addition, I want to say that a person can only be realty happy and derive pleasure from his work when he does the work he was born to do. The Creator wanted each one of us to do a certain task, and for that reason I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville should never have been here, because he would have realized that he was on the wrong side. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the most interesting thing that has been said so far by hon. members on the Government side, is the remark by the hon. member for Brakpan, who said the hon. the Prime Minister is anxious that people from this country, especially workers, should go and visit overseas countries. The first inference, which can be drawn from that remark is that the Prime Minister acknowledges by implication, that a situation has arisen which needs some explaining. Moreover, I hope the workers who do go, will not all be white. I think a few black workers should go and do some explaining as well.

I wish to discuss with the Minister the prospects which face us in this country, unless some constructive approach is adopted towards the vast number of Bantu employed in our industries. It has been said that when the border industries adjoining the Transkei are in full swing, it will be possible for Bantu in the Transkei to form themselves into trade unions, which will be able to negotiate with their employers. One must, however, not lose sight of the fact that, in terms of Government policy, these Bantu will have their own countrymen working here in the Republic. We heard the other day that the latter will be given passports and that they will really be nationals of the Bantustans. Therefore, it is fair to assume, these people will belong to trade unions in the Bantustans and industrial negotiations will take place between those trade unions and employers in the Republic.

I think every white worker in this country is concerned, but not in the way indicated by the hon. members for Langlaagte and Brakpan. However much, we may wish to avoid the facts, the facts are, that five out of every six workers in industry in this country, are black or coloured. In other words, one out of six workers is white. By means of job resevation the Government tried to halt the introduction of non-Whites into industry. According to my information, there were only 21 reservations in terms of the Job Reservation Act in 12 years and of these, two were suspended in the engineering industry, one was declared ultra vires in the clothing industry—it was formerly number one, now number eight—and moreover the percentage of people affected by job reservation is negligible. I am informed they number about 50,000. So, Sir, I say job reservation has gone by the board; it is finished. Here we have small White trade unions, whose numbers may be large, but which in terms of the number of employees in industry in South Africa have small memberships. Negotiations are taking place across the conference table. Minimum wages are fixed, but very few White journeymen and other artisans receive a wage in terms of the fixed minimum wage because they are paid premium wages. There is a feeling among trade unions, that the wages fixed in terms of an industrial agreement should have a maximum as well as a minimum figure. That would result in the White worker getting a much higher wage than he gets to-day. To-day it is left to the employer to negotiate with the worker, on the basis of the man selling his ability and his skill in the best market. As hon. members no doubt know, there is no mention of colour in industrial agreements: Industrial agreements are based on various jobs and what is paid to the people doing those jobs. In the case of the Confederation of Labour, which forms the whole basis of the Blanke Werkersbeskermersunie, there also, concessions had to be made. Bantu men had to do jobs formerly done by Whites for a white man’s wages. Any sensible person must to-day realize, that unless the Government faces up objectively to the proper control of Bantu labour, to ensure that they are adequately paid, and paid on the basis that they do not compete unfairly with the white worker, the Government will be guilty of gross negligence. Much as we may wish to shut our eyes to it, more and more black people are going into industry and trade than ever before. It is an irreversible process.

Let us look at the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He is trying to remove Bantu from the Western Cape. Where do they go? They have to be employed in the Eastern Cape, and if they cannot get work there, they just come back here to the Western Cape. These policies of or actions by the Government, seem to indicate that something is being done, but the people concerned who should be moved, are in fact still with us. They may be 300 or 400 miles away, but the Government has not succeeded in its policy. As we heard to-day, when another Vote was under discussion, they are congregating around East London where they are becoming quite a serious problem from an unemployment point of view.

I say to the hon. the Minister that I should like him to explain to us why he is so hostile to TUCSA when they are endeavouring to get the Bantu worker organized. When I say organized, I do not mean organizing them to create disturbances and things like that. I have many years of experience in dealing with industrial agreements, on the international as well as on the local national levels, and I can tell this House, quite frankly, that the attitude of workers in the international field is to give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, whereas before they used to ask for a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. These people negotiate; they ask for better conditions; they ask for social welfare benefits; for pensions and shorter hours of work, the limitation of loads carried by one man; they discuss the position of women in industry and the ages at which minors should be employed. These are the fields in which industrial councils work on the international plane. They are quite straightforward and the resolutions are called conventions.

As far as white labour in this country is concerned, we have a tremendously good record. Our Industrial Conciliation Act is as good as any in the world, and indeed it is better than most legislation of a similar kind, but when one talks about labour matters at international congresses one is asked: “What about the great black mass in South Africa?”. As I have said, in our country the “great black mass” constitute five-sixths of the number of people employed in trade and industry. These are the people I think the Minister should apply his mind to, because the present Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act simply does not work. I do not know how many years ago a minimum wage was set for Bantu workers; it must be over twenty years ago if it is a day. I recall that the only representations that were made came from one man who used to attend meetings of the Industrial Council, where employers and employees had discussions, who pleaded for more money for Bantu workers. Of course, the Bantu of those days and the Bantu of to-day are totally different persons. What the Bantu of to-day is interested in, is to get more money, a better wage, more comforts, a better home, educating his children, and having his health seen to when he is ill. These are the things they are interested in, the same as anybody else. I believe the Government is making a vast mistake when it regards these people as a menace. They are nothing of the sort. I believe if our Bantu were introduced into trade and industry on an orderly basis and with a proper arrangement with employers, together with adequate safeguards for white workers, perhaps by way of paying minimum wages or some other way, we would, I believe, begin to show some progress.