I just want to dwell for a few moments on what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, because yesterday in the debate he created the impression that when he makes speeches he sees to it that he is fairly well-read and that he is on the look-out for good books to read. I just want to recommend another book to him which he must read, a book which will be of such great benefit to him that he will be able to make good speeches in this House in future. The book in question is “Sticks and Stones” by Joyce Waring. If the hon. member were to read this book I am very sure that he would be accorded a very good reception in this House and would be able to make a very good speech. So much for the hon. member’s reading matter. As far as his sinkhole problem is concerned, I want to leave that to the hon. member for Carletonville because I think that he is better informed about it than any other member in this House.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to speak very seriously about certain aspects of the mining industry, and I hope that hon. members will regard the matter in a serious light. Sir, when you read the articles of Mr. A. C. Treurnicht in connection with the mining industry and the trade unions in South Africa, you will see that there is a certain struggle, a never-ending struggle, being waged here in this country, and more specifically here in the House of Assembly. That struggle has been waged since the establishment of the mining industry and it is still being waged to-day. I just want to add here that we have learned from the hon. the Minister with a great measure of relief that there is every sign of a change of heart and outlook in the higher branches of mining in South Africa, but in spite of that I nevertheless want to say that there is a tremendous influence obtaining in the mining industry which disturbs South Africa to a certain extent from time to time. Here this afternoon I want to mention the name of the man who is exercising that tremendous influence. I do not like mentioning people’s names in this House, but I must mention his name here because he stands in the forefront of that struggle which has already caused South Africa so much trouble and is still doing so to-day. I refer to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. Before I specifically come to his policy, I just want to say that he is continually stirring up the mining industry as a result of his policy of having Whites replaced by non-Whites in the mines. He announces that policy in season and out of season. He has no respect for “gentlemen’s agreements” which are made by Ministers and trade union leaders. He refuses to restrict himself to that and to accept the fact that it is simply the policy of the country and that it is the policy which will bring us peace and quiet. Sir, this now brings me to the serious matter which I want to touch upon to-day, and I do not do so in a spirit of recrimination, but let us now for once delve deeply and see what the causes are of certain problems in the mining industry. In this respect I want to quote briefly from the report of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Commissioner. If hon. members were to look at page 13 of the report they would see that certain figures are mentioned in respect of pneumoconiosis plus tuberculosis and tuberculosis alone. I shall come to the point in a moment and then, Sir, you will see why I am mentioning Mr. Oppenheimer’s name in this connection. I first want to emphasize the seriousness of the matter and then you will see where he fits into the picture. On page 13 you will see that from 1957 no fewer than 24,420 cases of tuberculosis plus pneumoconiosis broke out in the mining industry, as certified by the bureau, and 30,479 cases of tuberculosis alone—altogether 54,899 cases over a period of 11 years. This is an appalling number. You will now ask me what Mr. Oppenheimer’s policy has to do with this, since we surely all accept the fact that all bodies are doing their level best to combat the diseases. In recent years the hon. the Minister has come a long way in bringing about a spirit of goodwill in the mining industry, but what do we find? We find, as the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Carletonville have indicated here, that as a result of Mr. Oppenheimer’s personal policy which, unfortunately, is still triumphing in the mining industry, the mine managements want to appoint Bantu as samplers, surveyors and ventilation officers. It is Mr. Harry Oppenheimer’s personal policy that those people should be in charge of ventilation. These dreadful cases of miner’s phthisis can only be ascribed to two factors in the mining industry. The one is silica dust and the other is foul air caused by poor ventilation. On these two important aspects Mr. Oppenheimer is still conducting the struggle by stating that the technical people in charge of these things, who must safeguard the health of all the thousands of miners, White and Black, must be Bantu. If this is not something which the mining industry should take serious note of, then I do not know what on earth would cause them to abandon this kind of policy. It is a policy which is not chiefly concerned with the prevention of accidents, but with the forestalling of the two factors which are exclusively responsible for the occurrence, growth and continual manifestation of those two terrible diseases. But Mr. Oppenheimer, in spite of his well-disposed colleagues and in spite of these good relations which we have to-day, still insists that those control measures and their technical supervision should be in the hands of non-Whites. One need not be an exminer. One only needs to use one’s common sense to realize that when these essential aspects of the mining industry are placed in the hands of non-Whites, trained by him and not by the State for supervision over these matters, it is no wonder that one still has the appalling number of cases of ordinary phthisis and of miner’s phthisis in the mining industry. There is a maxim in the mines to the effect that the reason why miner’s phthisis still occurs so frequently is that ventilation is not as cheap as compensation. The point is that if the mining industry were to have been saddled with a heavy enough burden of prevention and compensation for these miner’s phthisis cases, they would not have been so frivolous as to leave this essential aspect of the prevention of these diseases in the hands of Bantu. [Time expired.]

It is a long time since I heard anybody make such an irresponsible speech in this House, as we have just heard from the hon. member for Krugersdorp. Does he want to tell this House that any man would purposely want to do something to the mineworker so that he would get tuberculosis or pneumoconiosis or any other disease?

Answer that.

Does the hon. the Minister agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp? Does he think that what that hon. member said is correct? [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister can answer this in a moment. Does the hon. member for Krugersdorp want to imply that tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis only came about during the past few months when there was a slight infiltration of Bantu as ventilation officers and samplers? What happened in the years before they came in? Was there no pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis then? What have we been legislating for all these years? But the hon. member puts the onus on one man, and he says nothing about the mines that are outside the Anglo-American group. Are those mines free of tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis? I think it is absolutely disgraceful for a responsible individual to come into this House and to talk in those terms, and I ask the Minister to repudiate him. [Interjections.]

Let us get back to what we were discussing last night. I want to ask the Minister whether he is in agreement with the suggestions I made last night. I said that in principle we on this side of the House would like to see a pension introduced after a reasonable number of years of working in a dust hazardous area for those people who have not yet been classified as having pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis. It is a reasonable request. Is the Minister agreeable to this in principle, or is he not? [Interjections.] Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there have been any representations from mineworkers’ unions in this regard. If there have been, will the hon. the Minister take the House in his confidence and tell us what these representations were?

Since when are you concerned about the mineworkers?

We have always been concerned about the mineworkers. I want to know whether or not the Minister has had this matter investigated and if he has had it investigated, what are his findings? Does he think that this is feasible? Does he think that this is a matter that should be rejected or is he willing to undertake further investigation if he is doubtful. We are not going to go into detail about this, because it is a matter to which the actuaries, the mine employers and employees, will have to give a great deal of thought. Is he in favour of the State accepting the contingent liability or does he reject that? I think it is very important that we should know. I think it is very important for our side of the House and the Government side of the House to know who is going to hold the responsibility for this if he agrees to institute, and finds in favour of, such a scheme. I do not know what the Minister’s feelings are in regard to this matter, but he was very doubtful last night as to whether we on this side of the House would accept the suggestion I made. I want to tell him again that we on this side of the House are agreeable. We should like to see an investigation carried out immediately if he has not done that already. Let us find out once and for all how we can proceed along these lines. We know of the majority of the ripple effects if this scheme is introduced. We know that it may possibly lead to a shortage of labour. It may mean that a lot of miners who are still able to carry on with work will go out of employment and will go looking for other work. But the hon. member for Geduld has pleaded for something for which I have pleaded for a long time, and that is that a secondary occupation should be taught to the miner after he has done 20 years of service on the mines. This should be done so that if he wishes to go out of the mines after 25 years, he will not only receive a pension from the mines, but will be able to supplement that pension, which will not be a large pension, by other work. It is a matter which is of great importance to the miners and we are waiting with interest to hear what the hon. the Minister has got to say on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to a few matters which were raised last night. One of them is the matter the hon. member has again broached now, lust before I come to that I want to refer to what the hon. member for Krugersdorp said. He mentioned the number of pneumoconiosis as well as the number of tuberculosis cases which originated in the mines. He addressed himself to mining magnates, and mentioned one by name, in regard to this matter. I think it is a good thing that all mining magnates and all who employ mineworkers should take cognisance of what is being said in this House. I think it becomes apparent from speeches such as these relating to the incidence of tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis, as well as the employment of Bantu (which strictly speaking is a matter which should be dealt with by the Minister of Labour), that it is not only the mineworkers who are very concerned and very sensitive about these matters, but that there is also much sensitivity and concern among members of this House. I think it can only be to the good if opinions are expressed from various quarters, even though they are sometimes of a disparate nature, because this emphasizes one point in particular, which is that there is concern for the welfare of the mineworker and that this is deep-rooted in the members on this side of the House. The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for that, has already supplied this House with detailed information in regard to his discussions and in regard to the steps which he has taken in regard to the employment of Bantu in our mines. That is why I am not going to touch upon this again. I may say however, that at the international conference there has once again been testimony to the fact that unquestionably progress has during the past few years been made in regard to ventilation in our mines. I am very grateful to be able to say this, because it can mean only one thing. It means that the welfare of the mineworker is being better looked after than in the past. But having said that, I am also aware that we are living in a time in which science does not stand still, and that one would like to see the march of progress which has been made in regard to ventilation continue, even though the progress has been tremendous in the past. I think that also became quite apparent from what the hon. member for Krugersdorp said.

The hon. member for Rosettenville said the following last night: “The miner who has been working for 25 years in a mine should be granted a pension”. He elucidated this with other statements, and confirmed it this afternoon as the standpoint of his party. Now I repeat, this is a new standpoint which we are hearing for the first time. We have never heard it before from that side of the House.

Do you agree with it?

I am still coming to that. I shall furnish the hon. member with a complete reply. Let me say this right at the outset, and I am addressing this in particular to my friends, the mineworkers: The sudden mention, in 1969, of a pension after 25 years on a mine is aimed at the 1971 election. [Interjections.] Let us have no illusions about this now. The hon. member merely made this suggestion and asked whether I had investigated it. Now I hope the mineworkers will also take cognisance of the fact that the hon. member, who has been sitting here for years discussing these matters, does not even know the history of this matter. What is the history? As long ago as 1956 one of my predecessors, Dr. Van Rhyn, mentioned this matter. It was consequently insisted that this idea should be carried into effect. A detailed investigation was then instituted. Representatives of the Mineworkers’ Union, the Department and the Chamber of Mines were sent overseas to undertake a thorough investigation in this regard. I am not certain whether the Government paid for the overseas journey, but the entire initiative was taken by the Government. A draft Bill was drawn up. I think the hon. member is beginning to see a little light now. That is the investigation which was made. The draft Bill was sent to a long list of persons and bodies, the mining houses, all the trade unions concerned, and all other bodies that could possibly have an interest in this. What was the result? The draft Bill was rejected by the mining magnates and the Mineworkers’ Union, jointly. They did not want it. We then introduced the pneumoconiosis legislation of 1962. Let me state at once that with reference to the pneumoconiosis conference that I undertook, if there should be anything to the benefit of mineworkers which was based on scientific grounds, to reconsider the Pneumoconiosis Act. This side of the House has always been willing, on firm grounds, to effect changes for the improvement of a division of the mineworkers. This will be done again.

But, Mr. Chairman, let me also add that the Pneumoconiosis legislation of 1962 is the best legislation in regard to dust diseases the world has ever seen. Representatives from 16 countries testified to this fact. The pneumoconiosis sufferer in South Africa, for whom I feel much sympathy …

Oh yes?

… is comparatively speaking … What did the hon. member for Yeoville just say?

I only said “Oh yes”.

He is crazy (“gek”). [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that hon. member entitled to say to the hon. member for Yeoville, “He is crazy”?

This is really a poor show.

The hon. member for Brakpan must withdraw that remark.

If I withdraw it, can they still go on with it? I withdraw. [Interjections.]

Withdraw!

Order! The hon. member has withdrawn his remark.

I did not hear.

But I did.

I am bitterly disappointed, when one is dealing with such a serious matter as the health of a large part of our workers in South Africa, to get remarks of that kind from that side of the House? Remarks which spoil the atmosphere. Now, Sir, that draft Bill, inter alia, implied the inception of a scheme in terms of which the mining magnates on the one hand and the Government on the other hand would each contribute R20 million; simply to initiate the scheme. That was the situation during 1959/60/61. But, as I have said, it was not accepted. Now the hon. member is asking me whether I subsequently received any representations. Well, I did receive subsequent representations, including some from the mineworkers union, with the general purport—such representations are also received from hon. members of this side of the House—that there should be an automatic pension for any mineworker after he has worked for a certain period of time in the mines—20, 25 or 30 years, or whatever it is, in other words, more or less what the hon. member has now proposed. I have received representations to this effect on more than one occasion. But I have consistently refused. I shall now tell you why I did that. I am going to deal with this matter in detail because I do not want it misunderstood. My principle reason is that I am not prepared to discriminate against those who have really contracted pneumoconiosis, for if there is money available for a pension relating to pneumoconiosis, it is my standpoint that it should not go to healthy people, but to those people who were so unfortunate as to contract pneumoconiosis. It must be utilized in order to increase the already reasonable compensation which is being paid to-day. When I speak about compensation I want to emphasize this, because what is being paid out to-day to the unfortunate victims of pneumoconiosis, is not a pension, but a compensation for a disease which they began to suffer from as a result of conditions in the mines, in other words, an industrial disease. It is therefore compensation for an industrial disease that a person is already suffering from and which has had certain effects on him. That is why I maintain that I do not want to use the funds earmarked for this for healthy people.

I want to say at once that I am quite conversant with the fact that the mineworker who retires and who does not have pneumoconiosis, and some who do have it, are not finding it easy to make ends meet to-day, as a result of the subsequent introduction of the pension scheme for the mineworkers. In fact, some of them are having a hard time. For these people we have every sympathy. But now that I have said that, I must add that all pension schemes in South Africa to-day are contributory pension schemes, and since this is the case. I am grateful that in regard to the mineworkers in 1949 … Let me state here in parenthesis to the hon. member that 1949 was the year after 1948. I wonder why this was not in 1939 or in 1943 and that it should in fact have happened for the first time in 1949 when as a result of various efforts a start was made with a pension scheme for the mineworker of South Africa. Now, this scheme, after it has been in operation for 20 years already, is no longer adequate. But at the same time I am informed that once this pension scheme is 20 or 30 years old the pension which will be paid out in terms of it will compare well with any other scheme. I want to say to the hon. member again that there is no lack of sympathy on our part, definitely not. But there can after all be no question of the Government having to take the initiative in regard to a group of people for whom a limited pension scheme does exist, in order to subsidize a pension scheme in such a way that it compares favourably with other schemes, the members of which are also citizens of South Africa and who have since the beginning of their period of employment contributed their fair share. One must be very careful not to do a thing like this, because then one would be doing an injustice to others. It is my considered opinion, as Minister of Mines, that since the money for such a scheme has to come from the Government and the mining magnates, as the hon. member suggested, and since the payment is linked to pneumoconiosis, it should involve a person who was so unfortunate as to contract the disease and not those who have been working for 25 years, and who now receive the pension regardless of whether they are suffering from the disease or not. Additional funds, as these become available, must go to the unfortunate …

And what about those who have not been diagnosed?

I am coming to that now. The diagnosis of pneumoconiosis is not a perfect science, just as no other science, particularly medical science, is perfect. But let me make it quite clear that the errors which are being made in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis are, percentage-wise, far smaller than the errors which are made in daily medical practice. This cannot be denied. I would say that the percentage of errors that are being made in the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis is approximately 5 per cent.

Which is nevertheless quite high.

How many errors did the hon. member for Rosettenville, for example, make in his practice as far as diagnoses are concerned?

Nil. [Laughter.]

Is that why you never practised?

Let us approach an authority in this field, the hon. member for Durban (Central). The two of us have discussed these things at quite some length; I found it to be plus minus 15 per cent, and so did he. I am just making this general statement and I am serious about this. In the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis the percentage error is smaller than in the private practice. But we have in the departmental report the numbers that were certified after post-mortem examination. For the year 1967-’68 there were 598, and for the year 1968-’69 there were 592. But now I really do not want hon. members to get the impression that every mineworker who dies is certified after his death as having had pneumoconiosis. That is not so. I have the figures here with me. Hon. members must realize that there are large numbers who quite probably did not go for a previous examination. This is a major factor. Of those who were examined in 1967-’68 233 were certified while 365 were not certified. In 1968-’69 262 were certified and 330 were not certified. The fact of the matter is that a very large percentage under 20 per cent are certified.

Under 20 per cent what …?

In terms of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. That post-mortem certification is simply impossible prior to death, because it is determined by means of microscopic examination of lungs etc., of the deceased. When I have said all this therefore, the fact remains that the number of persons suffering from pneumoconiosis is undoubtedly on the wane. That is true. Secondly there has been a great improvement in the ventilation of the mines, and this is being improved even further. Thirdly, I want to state very clearly here to-day that I am not lacking in sympathy in regard to the fate of the mineworker. But to take money which has been made available for those who are really affected by the disease in order to give a blank pension to people who are healthy, would be discrimination against those unfortunate persons who have contracted pneumoconiosis. This is my reply to the hon. member. I am prepared to discuss this matter, and I have in fact discussed it on numerous occasions with my friends, the Mineworker’s Union. We must not confuse the two questions of a compensation for an industrial disease with a pension, which must of course be a contributory pension. I want to mention only one practical fact in this regard to the hon. member. If we were to accept this proposal it would mean that if a mineworker went to work in the mines at the age of 19 he would receive pension the day he turned 44. Then we would have to place numerous healthy people of that age on pension. This would impose a heavy burden, not only on the mining industry, but also a financial burden on the Government. When I say “the Government” I actually mean that the taxpayers will be burdened. I want to state unequivocally to the hon. member that I do not feel myself at liberty to ask the taxpayers of South Africa, as well as the mineworkers who also pay tax, to give me money in order to place a large percentage of healthy people on pension. I am not prepared to do that.

Secondly I am also not prepared to place a person who is 44 years old—and I know what it means to be 44 years old—in prime of his life, on pension. I know the hon. member stated that these people should not stop working. But can he comprehend what the psychological effect would be on men in the prime of their lives if they were now to begin receiving a pension. This is simply going to reduce the productivity of our people. We are going to get a spirit in South Africa which is not right.

After all, Willie Maree did retire with a large pension.

I almost want to say that that was a filthy remark.

Why?

Because a reflection is being cast here on a member of this House who is no longer in this House.

What reflection? How can the hon. Minister suggest a thing like that?

Order! The hon. the Minister may not use the word “filthy” (“smerig”).

I withdraw it. Let me just say that it applies to any member of this House. The hon. member knows that it was requested by general agreement on both sides. It has no relation to this at all. I am talking about the psychological effect if one were, on a large scale on our mines, to give every man working those mines, who is 44 years or a little older, a pension. It would have an effect on South Africa which could cause untold damage. Now I want to say something else. I want hon. members to listen because it is a scientific fact that the life expectancy of mine workers who have been certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis, and the life expectancy of other Whites who have survived past the age of 20 years … comparatively speaking, the life expectancy of these two groups differs very little. These particulars are reliable. It is also gratifying to know that the life expectancy of our mineworkers is not far removed from the general life expectancy of the Whites in South Africa. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have said enough about this matter; we shall probably discuss it again on a subsequent occasion.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Parktown who put certain questions to me in regard to uranium. Let me just say, in the first place, that it appears from the latest survey in regard to uranium by the European Nuclear Energy Agency, that South Africa now has the greatest reserves of uranium which can be exploited at less than 10 dollars per pound. I think it is good news for us that our country has such great reserves. In addition the hon. member asked me: What about the price of uranium and its availability. The price at which uranium is sold depends upon many things, inter alia, the kind of contract —whether it is a long or a short-term contract —to which country it is being sold, and also the future marketing possibilities in terms of the contract. One cannot therefore indicate the price of uranium simply, as the hon. member requested, but in any case the hon. member will also understand that the price at which uranium is being sold cannot for obvious reasons be disclosed. As far as the availability of uranium is concerned, I must point out that the free world is gradually moving out of a situation where there is an over-production of uranium to one where the maximum production potential will not be adequate to meet the requirements, unless new sources are discovered and exploited in order to increase the production potential. It is clear that the maximum production potential of the free world, which is at present set at 40,000 tons per year, will in the year 1975, according to calculation, fall short by between 5,000 to 20,000 tons per year needed to meet the expected demand. The expected demand in 1980, that is, after our first nuclear reactor has come into operation here in the Cape, is estimated at between 75,000 and 105,000 tons per year. South Africa need not fear therefore that the main uranium deposits we have, will be of less value to us in the years which lie ahead.

In addition the hon. member also asked why the State was no longer making a contribution to the uranium selling organization. As the hon. member knows, it was provided in the Atomic Energy Amendment Act in 1967, at the request of the uranium industry, that the proprietary right of uranium, which was previously vested in the State, should now be vested in the producer. In that way the responsibility of the State of finding markets for uranium of course elapsed, and hence the cancellation of a Government contribution to the selling organization. However I just want to emphasize—because I think this is very important—that there are not only one-channel sales of uranium but that the State, in terms of the Nuclear Energy Act, has full control and also exercizes full control over the conditions under which uranium has to be marketed. I think that serves as a reply to the question put by the hon. member. As far as research is concerned, I do not think the hon. member will expect me to go into details here in any way. I just want to say that the nature of the research, since it is entering its third programme now, will of course become more expensive with the passage of time as far as salaries and other things are concerned, but that the gold mining industry is still making its contribution of R550,000 per year, Escom is contributing R700,000 per year, and Iscor and other industries are contributing R50,000 per year. We are grateful for the fact that these contributions are being made, but let me emphasize that it is absolutely essential that the gold mining industry and others realize how important it is for them to make a major contribution to this entire matter because it is not only in their interest, but is in the interests of the entire Republic of South Africa, and that we will have to ensure that this contribution will remain at a reasonably high level.

Then there is the question of iron ore. The hon. members for Rosettenville and Parktown and a few others mentioned this question. I may just say that the question of the sale of iron ore is a very important matter. There are people, and important people, who are convinced that iron ore is one of the ores which a country should not sell in its raw state, no matter how high its reserves are.

Hear, hear!

I am glad the hon. member is saying “Hear, hear!” because it was advocated here yesterday evening that we should take steps to make it easier to sell our iron ore in its raw state, and it was requested that I Should hold consultations with the Minister of Transport etc. Secondly, I just want to say that it appears to me that what the hon. members who discussed this matter had in mind in particular was the transportation of ore by means of a pipeline. This matter is being very thoroughly investigated, and I think it is still being investigated by Iscor, not only with a view to exports, but possibly for their own purposes, and all this information is of course available to the Government. But I do not want to elaborate on this any further because it is a matter which should obviously be discussed by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Unlike the negative attitude adopted by the United Party during this debate so far, I want to start off on a more positive note by expressing appreciation towards particularly those members of the staff of the hon. the Minister whose duty it is to make our mines safe. I want to say that it gives us a great deal of pleasure to see from the report of the Government Mining Engineer that the death rate is 1.05 per 1,000 persons at the moment as against 1.30 last year, while the accident rate is 45.29 per 1 000 for this year as against 49.14 last year. When considering that there are altogether 632.000 white and non-white mineworkers at the moment. I want to say that this is a remarkable achievement, and for that reason I should very much like to avail myself of this opportunity of extending my sincere congratulations for this to the Department and the people who do their share to make our mines safe.

However, there are three minor matters I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I see on page 5 of the report of the Miners’ Medical Bureau that before a working miner’s certificate is withdrawn, every possibility is explored to ensure that minimal socio-economic harm is done to him. This is done by consultation with the patient, his employer, his doctor and any other persons who may contribute to a solution. When looking at Table V one sees that the certificates of 27 working miners were withdrawn during 1963-’64 while the certificates of nine working miners were withdrawn during 1967-’68, and this seems wrong to me. It seems wrong to me that the withdrawal of such a certificate should have anything to do with the socio-economic condition of such a miner. I should say that the decisive factor as regards the withdrawal of such a certificate should be the health of the miner concerned, and according to this report it would appear as if his health is of secondary importance. This seems wrong to me, and I want to say that while one appreciates the problems when a man is so suddenly deprived of his livelihood, this matter is one which will have to be thoroughly investigated. In this connection I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for an inquiry to be made into the establishment of institutions similar to sheltered employment factories, which fall under the Department of Labour, to which these people who have come to the end of their careers owing to the withdrawal of their certificates may be admitted, something which would at least enable them to earn an income should they no longer be in a position to compete on the open labour market. My experience is that these people are more than anxious to continue working after they have been declared unfit by the mines, and I think we should give them the opportunity for that. I want to ask therefore whether this matter could not be considered.

There is one final matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a matter concerning the training of our mineworkers. On page 17 of the report of the Government Mining Engineer one finds a paragraph in which the following fine sentiments are expressed: “As in the past the mining industry gave much attention to organized training of all classes of employees.” This sounds very impressive. However, a little lower down on the same page we see that 1,663 trainees were admitted to these mining schools during the past year. Of this number 530 completed their training while 387 left for various reasons before completing their courses. Considering that these mining schools cost the State R510,000 per year, one should be concerned when there is such a considerable waste of manpower. 387 out of altogether 1,663 represents nearly 25 per cent of the total number and in the meantime the taxpayers have to contribute towards the cost. One should ask oneself where the fault lies. Is there something wrong with these training schools? Why do so many people discontinue their training and leave the schools?

I think we have now come to the stage where certain conclusions may be drawn. One of the conclusions one has to draw from the training of these people, is that too many experiments are being conducted at these schools. Too many experiments are being conducted as regards the training and before I am accused of making a statement which I cannot prove, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to indicate why I say that too many experiments are being conducted at these schools.

In 1963 the person who was the head of those schools at that time were instrumental in the appointment of a commission which was supposed to go into the training of these trainees. But what happened? As a result of investigations made by this commission six or eight so-called high-induction officers, whatever that means, were trained at an enormous cost. After they had completed their training they did not join the trainees, but another 20 ordinary induction officers were trained at considerable cost as well. The State had to pay for the training of these people. What happened after these people had been trained? Surface training centres were established at Modder B, Crown Mines, East Geduld, St. Helena and Buffelsfontein. With this one cannot quarrel, but these training centres consist of luxury buildings and expensive equipment, However, there is nothing wrong with this either. After these buildings had been erected, they were demolished and removed elsewhere. What happened then? Officers who had rendered faithful and excellent service through the years in connection with the training of mineworkers, were then sent out by the training schools as recruiting agents. According to the information I have one of those officers who had been sent out could not even recruit ten trainees for those schools over a period of ten months. In the meantime requests are being made for money to be provided. Training officers also obtained certificates as mine managers. How were they treated? They were told that there was no future for them in these schools and they were pushed out.

I have the names of these people and I can furnish the hon. the Minister with these names if necessary. But what is happening at present? Luxury classrooms are now being built underground and people are being drawn from the ordinary educational sphere to train mine trainees. Many of these people do not have blasting certificates themselves. The point I want to make is that no long-term planning is being applied by these schools. For what reason is this being done? The reason for this is that these schools were incorrectly constituted by the Board. The Chamber of Mines has ten members on this Board and the State, through the hon. the Minister of Mines, appoints five members by implication. Only three of these five members serve as the representatives of the State while the other two members represent the Mineworkers’ Union. I say that nothing else can be expected of a Board constituted in this way, of which only five members are appointed by the State, than that it will carry out its duties unsatisfactorily, as I have tried to show. This Board, which has to lay down the policy as regards the training of these mineworkers, meets once a month. I was told that these meetings probably last only half an hour, if not shorter.

To drink tea.

Yes, probably to drink tea. The hon. member is quite right. One cannot carry out one’s duties satisfactorily in this way. I want to ask this afternoon whether the time has not come for the hon. the Minister to consider having exhaustive inquiries made into the training of our mineworkers and to consider whether we should not have a completely new approach as regards the training of mineworkers. I believe that we shall then get the necessary manpower to carry out this good and major work, and that many problems will then be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, the last part of the hon. the Minister’s explanation was particularly interesting. He spoke as Minister about certain administrative details of his Department and we appreciate his reply in this regard.

I just want to refer to the fact that the hon. the Minister spoke about the problem in connection with the export of iron ore. I took it that it does in fact present him with a problem. We are exporting iron ore, but the feeling exists that it is wrong to export a valuable strategic asset such as iron ore. I am one of those who feel that one must think twice about this. One particularly has to consider whether the ore should be exported or whether it should not rather first be refined and the iron extracted. If it is necessary to export, one can then export the pure iron, so that the work of refining can be done by our own people. This will also result in the burden on the transport facilities of our country being reduced.

Furthermore I must say that the first part of the hon. the Minister’s speech, when he tried to reply to what my friend the hon. member for Rosettenville had said, was bitterly disappointing to me, to all of us, and, I would not be surprised, to the public outside as well. In all the years I have been sitting on this side of the House I have never yet seen a Minister floundering to such an extent, being so embarrassed and putting up such a poor performance as the hon. the Minister did over a matter of policy. The hon. member for Rosettenville asked the hon. the Minister whether he agreed with the extremely irresponsible utterances of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The hon. the Minister did not reply. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that one should take note of what was being said. I agree, and I hope above all that the people will take note of the extremely irresponsible action of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who made an attack on a man such as Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. I do not want to break a lance for Mr. Oppenheimer; our political ways separated dramatically in 1958. But the hon. the Minister ought to tell us whether he agrees with the attempt of the hon. member for Krugersdorp to promote the politics of the verkrampte Nationalists by making an attack on Mr. Oppenheimer. Does he agree with the statement that Mr. Oppenheimer in his business policy adopts an indifferent attitude to the phenomenon of pneumoconiosis in our country? That is the question, and I am now putting it point-blank to the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. the Minister agree with that statement? It was not an insinuation, but a statement by the hon. member for Krugersdorp to the effect that Mr. Oppenheimer is promoting pneumoconiosis, by, for example, appointing Bantu to supervise ventilation, a policy which, the hon. member maintained, is aggravating pneumoconiosis.

But he did not say that.

He did, I am sorry, but the hon. Minister must please refer to the Hansard of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. He did say that.

He was speaking about samplers.

No, he was not. He was also speaking about ventilation officers. [Interjections.] But surely we cannot argue about this now. The hon. the Minister is running away from the facts now, and he does it very easily and very gladly. I now want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In the course of his speech he twice mentioned the progress made in regard to ventilation at our mines. Will the hon. the Minister now get up and say that the mines of the Anglo-American Corporation and other mines in which Mr. Harry Oppenheimer has an interest are making less progress than the rest of the mines in South Africa?

Of course not.

But that is the insinuation which was made by that hon. member. It is a definite statement which the hon. member made and the hon. the Minister does not have the courage to contradict one of his own front-benchers. [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville can make his speech himself. It is not necessary for the hon. member for North Rand to assist him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I shall try my best. There is a second phenomenon in the speech of the hon. the Minister, and that is his attitude towards the very earnest proposition put by the chairman of the United Party’s mining group, the hon. member for Rosettenville, to the effect that we are agreeable to a policy, in the case of mineworkers who have worked for a number of years—he suggested a period of 25 years …

You have never yet had such a policy.

The hon. member for Rosettenville suggested that mineworkers who have worked in the mines for 25 years should receive a pension in order to afford them the opportunity of deciding for themselves whether they want to continue working or not. The hon. the Minister rejected it. He pointed out that the Government itself had considered something along those lines, but had been unable to come to a decision because the difficulties were too great.

What were the difficulties?

The difficulty was that the R20 million per year which the mining industry would have had to contribute would have been asking too much of the mining industry.

Both the mining industry and the trade unions rejected it.

But of course, then the difficulties were too great, not so? But did the Minister not make his speech himself? It seems to me as though I must repeat his speech for him. I cannot understand it. The basis of the Minister’s approach is, firstly, that this policy of ours is a new one, but in these matters no one’s policy stands still. I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that since the first Act in this connection was applied in the Union of South Africa, and that was round about 1911, the principle of consequential or contingent liability has been applied to the mines. Whenever there was an increase in the miner’s phthisis pension the mines had to set aside millions of rands to make provision for future pensions which might perhaps be paid only after a particular mine which had perhaps contributed towards causing the disease had ceased to exist. In 1943 the then Minister of Mines, the hon. member for Constantia, departed from that and the contingent liability was accepted by the State in the days of the United Party. That was quite a revolution. It brought about a whole new approach in respect of the question of compensation to miner’s phthisis sufferers. The hon. member for Krugersdorp perhaps helped to bring it about. He would not deny that. Why was this matter then submitted to the mines and to the trade unions on the basis that the mining industry would have to pay R20 million? Surely this was a departure from the principle which we accepted during the war years? Surely this was a departure from the principle which the present Government itself had accepted? It was a departure from the laws they had passed in order to amend and improve the conditions attached to this in South Africa. Why is there a return now to something which we abandoned as long ago as during the war years, because it was regarded as obsolete? Neither the policy of the Government, nor the policy of the United Party, nor the policy of any thinking person remains for ever static in these matters. You adjust yourself as matters develop. The adjustment made by us in this connection was an important one, which was followed by the Government. But with this particular objective the Government disregarded and rejected this policy. Why? One can easily submit something to the mining industry in such a form that no one can accept it. But then you must not put forward as an excuse, when you do not carry through the matter, that the attitude adopted by the mining industry was responsible for it. Then you will be the one who is acting stupidly. The Minister acted stupidly in 1956 and 1961. I cannot say with certainty, but it seems to me as if they want to evade the responsibility. R40 million is a lot of money. But what is the mining industry worth to South Africa? What has it been worth to South Africa over the years? And what can it be worth to us in future? What is the work of the mine-worker worth to us? What is the surplus of the Minister of Finance each year? For the past umpteen years it has never been less than R40 million. The Minister has R341 million stowed away in a Stabilization Fund. He has now introduced a new system of taxation, a tax on consumers. I know and the hon. the Minister knows that it is going to bring in infinitely more than he estimated. South Africa is short of many things; above all it is short of a good government; but it is not short of the means to do justice to the people of South Africa. That excuse the hon. the Minister cannot use. The facts and the history of South Africa prove that South Africa has the means to look after its people where they deserve to be looked after. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know how it happened that the hon. member for Yeoville now has to be the smokescreen for a new policy as regards the mineworkers which was set out by the hon. member for Rosettenville last night. I just want to tell hon. members to-day that the National Party, and particularly the mine workers’ group of the party, and the Mine Workers’ Union will submit a detailed memorandum to the Minister. The Opposition have always been asleep, as they will always be. We are giving attention to those matters. This is a smokescreen which is being thrown up to soft-soap the voters before the 1971 elections, people they hope to catch. The mine worker will definitely not allow himself to be caught by the Opposition. In 1949 after the National Party had come into power, this Government saw to it that a pension fund was established for the mine-workers of whom I was one. Where were those people? They were fleeing in those years.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to hon. members as “those people”.

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman. We refused to be discouraged. [Interjections.] I am convinced that the Minister will deal with those hon. members further.

I just want to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating and thanking Mr. Nel, the retiring Secretary, for the excellent work he has done. I wish Mr. Uys, the new Secretary, every success, happiness and God’s speed for the task which awaits him. I know he has the sympathy of the mine-workers.

There are two minor matters I want to bring briefly to the attention of the hon. the Minister this afternoon. The first matter concerns persons who have been certified after death. As has been said by the Minister a moment ago, 233 post mortem certificates were issued during the year 1967-’68 while 232 certificates were issued in 1968-’69 in respect of persons who contracted pneumoconiosis. I want to make a serious appeal to-day in the interests of widows who are left behind with one, two or three children. I want to make a serious appeal that the widow of a person who is certified after death and who falls in the category of less than 20 per cent, should receive the same benefit as the widow of a person who has been certified at more than 20 per cent. If the Minister could do this, it would remedy a major shortcoming. Those families receive only about R1,100 and they do not receive any further compensation. These are the widows of persons Who are certified after their deaths at below 20 per cent. I request this politely.

In the second place. I want to ask that a higher pension be granted to people who have been certified at between 20 per cent and 50 per cent, those people who are not in a position to continue working in a mine as a result of the fact that they suffer from other diseases, but Who have been certified already. This is the only group of people to whom no increases were granted when concessions were made recently. But I am making this plea solely for those people whose health has deteriorated through circumstances to such an extent that they do not qualify for the second or third stage. I ask that their pension be increased.

I now come to the third request I want to make. In the Republic of South Africa 38,701 white persons are working in the mining industry: 4.704 white persons are working in the coal mines, while 14.293 are working in the asbestos, platinum and diamond mines. This gives a total of 67.698. I plead this afternoon that these 67,000 people be given an additional paid public holiday if possible. Generally the mine-worker has only three holidays, namely Good Friday, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas. If hon. members opposite want to do something of value, they can join me in my plea for the holiday, 31st May …

As a paid holiday?

Yes, as a paid holiday. I plead with the Minister for these people. This is the only group of people in the Republic of South Africa who have only three paid public holidays at present. The workers in the steel industry have four paid public holidays. This is the group that has the second lowest number of holidays. What I am pleading for is, that these mine-workers should have four paid holidays as well. I am making this plea on behalf of all the mine-workers in the Republic of South Africa. I plead that 31st May be made a paid public holiday.

Mr. Chairman, before reacting to the hon. member for Stilfontein, I should like on behalf of this side of the House to extend our very best wishes to Mr. Nel, the retiring Secretary for Mines. We hope that Mr. Nel will have a very happy, long and healthy retirement. We know, of course, the contribution he has made, not only to the Department, but to mining in South Africa. We hope that the knowledge he has gained and his experience will not be lost entirely to the mining industry in South Africa.

The hon. member for Stilfontein we all know is a person with considerable knowledge of mining, and he normally comes into this debate and makes a very good contribution in the interest of miners. He did this again to-day, but unfortunately he spoilt his copybook by starting off by telling this House that, with regard to the matter raised last night by a member on this side, he had already drawn up a memorandum to present to the hon. the Minister. This, of course, is very flattering. It is becoming very regular now for that side of the House to adopt suggestions from this side of the House. When one reads through the 1968 annual report of the Department of Mines, one will find under the heading “State alluvial diamond digging”, the statement by the Secretary for Mines, that planned production on these fields exceeded the estimate by more than 55,000 carats.

At the same time it is very pleasing to find that the recovery factor also increased by more than 10 per cent. Then, Sir, we find in the same report that there has been a sizeable increase in the recovery of diamonds in the category of ten carats and over. We know the difficulties and the problems that arise in the recovery of diamonds from the State diggings, and all I can say is that these figures show that the position for 1968 at any rate was very, very satisfactory. Then when we turn to the report of the De Beer’s Company, we find there too that there are encouraging signs of increased diamond production in South Africa. For instance, we find in the report that an announcement is made of the reopening of the Koffifontein Diamond Mine, a diamond mine that will have a life expectancy of more than 25 years. In the same report mention is made of an increased production of diamonds from Namaqualand, an increase of about 150,000 carats. Sir, when you add to this the fact that the Finch Mine is now in full production, the picture of diamond production in South Africa certainly looks a lot more healthy than it did a few years ago. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should not become complacent but that we should do everything in our power to try to uncover more payable deposits of diamonds, and here I want to suggest quite seriously to the Minister that every encouragement should be given to the private prospector in South Africa. You find, Sir, that very often, quite against the odds, against the advice of the experts, it is the private man who uncovers a payable field, and here we have two very good examples. We know, for instance, that in the case of the Williamson Mine the pipe was discovered against the assertion by experts that there were no diamonds there, and nearer home we have the case of the Finch Mine. I want to say that any money spent on encouraging the private prospector will pay very handsome dividends for South Africa.

Sir, having said that, I want to say that when you examine another section of the diamond industry in South Africa, then things are not at all encouraging. You find, for instance, that the diamond cutting industry in South Africa has remained completely static during 1968 and you find in the same report, Sir, that the chairman of the Diamond Cutting Board mentions the fact that although there were 24 applications for new diamond cutting licences, none in fact was granted, because in the opinion of the chairman, this would have meant creating new diamond cutting factories in South Africa. Sir, it has always been quite incredible to me that this very valuable diamond-cutting industry has been allowed to stagnate in South Africa over the years and that it has not been encouraged by the Government to keep pace with diamond production. It is rather disturbing to find that although South Africa to-day still provides 60 per cent of the world’s gem diamond output, in fact, only about a third of this output is processed in South Africa by South African labour. I know that the hon. the Minister in his reply will most probably tell me that there are certain limiting factors in regard to the extension of the diamond-cutting industry in South Africa. I know what these limitations are, and I would be the first to agree that the conventional diamond-cutting industry, as we know it to-day, has its limitations. These limitations were brought about by the fact that the cost structure in South Africa is very high and that it is not economical to process diamonds below the weight of one carat in South Africa. I feel that despite this South Africa could still have a diamond-cutting industry employing between 7,000 and 10,000 workers. I say this advisedly because I believe that there should be two diamond-cutting industries in South Africa working side by side. We should have the conventional diamond-cutting industry; there is no desire on this side of the House to interfere with the cost structure or the wage structure existing in this industry to-day, but we know that the smalls industry is an entirely different industry. Whereas you have the conventional diamond-cutting industry processing the larger diamonds by hand, for which you need a great amount of skill, we know that the processing of the smaller diamonds is to-day a completely mechanical process, and for this you can work on a very much lower cost structure. I know too that certain factories in South Africa have tried to process small diamonds in this country but quite obviously they have failed because it has been an economic impossibility to process those diamonds under the present wage and cost structure. It is a great pity—and I am sorry to have to say this—that we have an industry that was actually sponsored by this Government in the thirties; we know that the bulk of the diamonds needed are mined in this country and yet we find that the South African diamond-cutting industry does not employ even 1,000 journeymen to-day. When we look at other centres in the world we find, for instance, that Antwerp to-day employs 18,000 workmen, that Israel employs 10,000, that India, of all places, employs 7,000 and that even the United States employs 3,000 artisans in that particular industry. This seems all wrong to me because we know that in the cases of Antwerp and Israel the industry had to be completely restarted after the war. I want to say here that if you take the case of Israel, you see exactly what we are missing in this country in regard to the processing of small diamonds. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, allow me to read out a Sapa report written three years ago when one of the hon. members on that side of the House attempted to coin political capital out of a most serious geological disaster that struck my constituency and its environs. I want to read this out because I had the opportunity to react that unfortunate day to his speech and his most deplorable attempt to make political capital, as he again did last night, out of this disaster. I want to read out the report of what I said some three years ago—

Last night one of the hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Orange Grove, made another attempt to hawk with an unprecedented and unexpected tragic geological disaster in my constituency and its vicinity. If he had restricted himself to a realistic and scientific discussion based on geological data which are indisputable and established, and if he had made constructive suggestions based on those data, I would not have crossed swords with him. If he had gone so far as to thank the different consecutive Ministers of Mines and Ministers of Water Affairs for their attempts to co-operate with that area and with that most devoted team of geologists and mining officials and had thanked them for their unequalled devotion …

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but may I ask a question?

Sit down. I have no time. I was saying that if he had thanked them for their unequalled devotion and the most admirable zeal with which they expedited this research as far as the problem of sink-holes is concerned, in order to gain knowledge which was not available before, I would have been able to credit the hon. member for Orange Grove at least with some sense of appreciation. But he did not do it, and I want to go further. If the hon. member who was representing his party last night, had yesterday embarked on an unbiased study—and I want to stress this word—of the whole sink-hole problem which would have led him to the real core of this problem, then he would have been able to understand what we have to cope with; and what we have to cope with here is a conflict between human endeavour motivated by national economic considerations on the one hand and rigid geological laws on the other. Do they want to terminate mining activities on account of sink-holes in the Carletonville area? If they do, they must say so. If they do not, then I must plead with them seriously to reconsider their biased approach to this problem and then they must not generate politically biased discussion on such a most emotional question, as the hon. member for Orange Grove did last night. Unfortunately I have no other choice than to come to one conclusion, and that is that that party as they sit there, those hon. members over there, have no appreciation and no realism; they do not even have an inclination towards factual truth. [Interjections.] They do not have it as an integral part of their political character and structure, and time and again they expose themselves as a rare, contradictory political phenomenon. That is what we have to cope with. Apart from the fact that we have to cope with sink-holes, we also have to cope with a rare political phenomenon as they sit there.

After this much-discussed disaster struck us, the Government did not neglect the matter. The Government immediately appointed a technical committee, and that committee immediately embarked upon a research programme. The achievements of that committee were of invaluable assistance to this country. The dangerous and the unstable zones were demarcated. A fund was established. Compensation for damage to land or structural damage to dwellings and losses on account of the decreased flow of water was paid out, and negotiations are still proceeding. Recently the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs went out of his way to appoint a man of integrity to assess the general values of land in that vicinity so as to assist the farmers and the mining officials in their negotiations in regard to the true valuation of the land to be bought out. But now the hon. member for Orange Grove came here last night and once again he wanted to make some political capital out of it. We do not blame, as he did last night. We have no grounds for complaint. We do not despair. We nourish our activities in my constituency with the ingredients of tenacity and hope, and they cannot understand what I am saying now. That is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. They have no ingredients with which to nourish their idealism, and therefore they rely on that thing on which the hon. member for Orange Grove relied last night, and that is to act as a political vulture. He wanted to make political capital out of it. I have the greatest admiration and appreciation for the tenacity, for the courage and the patience and the restraint exhibited by the people in my constituency when I stood there that morning at daybreak. [Time expired.]

I should like to issue this challenge to the hon. the Opposition in pursuance of what the previous speaker has said, i.e. that when the next election is held they must distribute the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove among their voters, but then we must also have the right to distribute the speech made by the hon. member for Carletonville. We will then have a judgment such as has never been given before.

I should like to return to what the hon. member for Rosettenville said last night. He blamed the Minister and said that this side of the House was beating about the bush as far as disease conditions were concerned, where he stated that certain conditions occurring in the mines also occurred in certain industries. I am convinced that the Government is thoroughly aware of this, and if the hon. member reads through the Statute Book he will see that Act No. 77 of 1967 was introduced by the Minister of Labour for that very purpose, since certain dust conditions in industries also have to be investigated.

But now I should like to return to pneumoconiosis. A great deal has been said about pneumoconiosis, and I am very glad that these things have been thoroughly discussed so that we can get more clarity in regard to the question of pneumoconiosis. I was also privileged to attend that conference and I do not want to add my congratulations again. There are three aspects of this conference which became clearly apparent. I want to state these aspects again, because we must know about them. The first is that South Africa, as a small country, need not feel ashamed of sitting in a council chamber with other powers. Secondly, that our research workers and research in the field of pneumoconiosis has won the respect and esteem of all the countries where mining activities are being practiced and that South Africa will in future continue to play a leading role in this connection. In regard to the third aspect I should like to elaborate a little. Research has now brought to light many more factors which determine the origin and course of this disease. Not only were conditions in the industry itself, but also personal and environmental factors investigated. What is important, is that this research proves that these diseases, although they occur mainly in the mines, also occur in industries where raw products are processed. Post-mortem examinations in the U.S.A. disclosed that a large proportion of the population get fibrous bodies in their lungs as a result of dust. Dr. Louis J. Cralley, an expert of the health department in the U.S.A, had the following to say about this—

Mini-skirts as well?

A great deal has been said here about asbestos mines and the origin of asbestosis, inter alia that it can give rise to a certain type of lung cancer. Three thousand post-mortem examinations in New York’s hospitals disclosed that 51 per cent of the male deceased and 39 per cent of the female deceased had asbestos particles in their lungs. Asbestos is not only mined. Plus-minus 800,000 tons of asbestos is used annually in the U.S.A, principally for construction work.

In this way we can by means of X-ray examinations obtain negative findings for pneumoconiosis, while the presence of pneumoconiosis is confirmed by the postmortem examination. Dr. Fritze had the following to say in regard to coal miners in the Ruhr area in Germany—

This indicates how complex this entire matter is. The question arises whether changes in X-rays are not precipitated by endogenous factors. In fact, it has been proved by research, as appears from the papers which were read at the conference, i.e. that the reactivity, the immunity and hypersensitivity of the individual can also contribute to positive X-ray findings. In the same way, for example, we find that one person is not affected by a bee sting while another can die a few minutes afterwards. In other words, it depends upon the individual reaction of persons. Dr. Heppleston of the United Kingdom refers to the problem of how difficult it is to determine the relationship between exposure to dust and deterioration of the lung, as well as the role of infection by air pollution and by personal pollution, for example by smoking. In this regard he states—

Other prejudicial conditions are also discussed. We must not think in terms of dust only. Particularly in South Africa research is being carried out into radiation diseases. We are in fact one of the largest uranium-producing countries in the world. At that conference it was clearly shown that South Africa had thoroughly investigated the effect in this field, for example of uranium oxide, and had taken every possible step to prevent the toxicity of uranium oxide. That is why it is so difficult to determine what compensation should be paid and what should not be done. It is extremely difficult to lay down a norm. But we have this assurance from authorities that the legislation in South Africa in regard to pneumoconiosis is regarded as being among the best there is.

To my mind the discussion of this Vote has afforded us the opportunity of discussing matters on a high level. The factors were very favourable for such a discussion to be conducted, i.e. factors such as the discovery of oil and the fact that minerals such as platinum, chrome and others are being exploited to an increasing extent. But what happened? The official Opposition suffers from chronic political frustration. All the hon. member for Orange Grove did in participating in this debate, was—so he hoped—to create confusion. His underlying object in referring to the book on Dr. Hertzog and the mine workers was to create bad relationships between employers and employees, members of the House of Assembly and the Minister on the one hand, and the mine workers on the other hand. But we are not children; that is why it was possible for us to see through his trick immediately. [Interjections.] I am still coming to the hon. member for Rosettenville. Let us make this very clear here to-day. If after 1948 this National Party had not immediately appointed a commission in regard to all the labour legislation which affected the mine worker directly, there would have been no colour bar to-day; then the mine worker in South Africa would not have had the privilege to-day of having his own identity as a white mine worker. If the official Opposition wants to be sincere, they must admit that their policy of the rate for the job would mean the end of the white mine worker. The Opposition may deny this, they may make a fuss, they may coax and flatter, they may do what they please, but the Mine Workers’ Union in the Republic of South Africa will never accept them because, when human relationship are placed in the limelight, it is done on the basis of respect; it is done on a basis in respect of which honest and sincere action is taken. What happened this year? For the first time in the history of Mineworkers’ Union—and it is also for this reason that they are reacting like that—the Minister of Mines addressed the annual meeting of the trade union. Now I am saying in this House that the trade union’s secretary told me personally that he holds the Minister of Mines in high esteem, not because he is a yes-man, but because he deals with matters on the basis of merit. He does not act as the hon. member for Rosettenville did in trying to suggest in this House that he is a great champion of pensions. Only the year before last he made a plea here and said that the gold mining industry was done for. The hon. member for Hillbrow told the same story. He also said that there was no future in the gold mining industry; that productivity was on the decrease and that something had to be done to bring about greater productivity, i.e. through the “rate for the job”. The mine workers of South Africa are rejecting the United Party with contempt.

Where did you hear that?

There is something else which I should like to ask in all courtesy. In my constituency large-scale expansion is taking place as far as platinum mining is concerned. Last year I had the privilege of accompanying the hon. the Minister on a flight across this area in order to look at what the Department of Planning was doing. This concerns the economy of our Republic as a whole, and it gives one great pleasure to see that we have mineral wealth here which is being exploited at a rapid rate. In the Rustenburg constituency at present we have no fewer than 1.800 white mine workers who are working on mines where platinum and chrome are being mined. In addition there are approximately 30,000 Bantu. We are in a very fortunate position since hardly any cases of pneumoconiosis occur on the Rustenburg mines. I feel very strongly about the fact that in these mines there are indeed attendant industrial diseases which affect the mine worker directly. This is my personal opinion. I may be wrong, but I definitely believe that industrial diseases or industrial problems are in fact found there. I want to make this polite request to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that consideration should in fact be given to the establishment of a research institute which may inquire into the industrial problems experienced by the mine worker in my area. I do not expect such a thing to be done overnight. Very little research has been done as regards determining what the actual effects of platinum and chrome ore are. I feel that a gap may result if we do not undertake the necessary research.

I have very little time left, and I want to conclude by just identifying myself with the hon. member for Stilfontein who asked that Republic Day should be a holiday for the mine workers. It struck me that when the hon. member for Stilfontein asked this, there was deathly silence on the other side. The hon. member for Rosettenville immediately thought of his shares. There was no spontaneous reaction and nobody said that the hon. member for Stilfontein had made a good proposal, that they supported him and that they also wanted to see the mine worker in the Republic of South Africa being able to celebrate this day of our own national identity. It is too late now. A delayed reaction, a “political face-saving” as they call it, will now take place. Now they will say it all of a sudden. But at the time they did not react at all. That antipathy, that absolute dissociation from what is noble, is to me proof of the fact that there is simply no love of the mine worker on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Carletonville and Rustenburg could at least have afforded the hon. member for Orange Grove the courtesy of being here before they saw fit to attack him in this House. [Interjections.] I want to say that no notice was given to the hon. member for Orange Grove that anybody was going to attack him. He stayed in this House last night to listen to the reply from the hon. the Minister. We know that he is in fact not in town to-day. I think we all feel that anybody in this House deserves the courtesy of being enabled to reply to an attack made on him.

When my time ran out a while ago, I was mentioning the fact that Israel was a very good example of what could be done in building up a diamond cutting industry. I mentioned that Israel, starting from scratch after the war built up an industry where they today employ 10,000 journeymen. The important fact is that Israel to-day receives in excess of R120 million in foreign exchange from their small diamond cutting industry. I think the hon. the Minister will remember a few years ago there was quite a bit of controversy and publicity about the diamond cutting industry in South Africa. Suggestions were made, for instance that there should be a total ban on the export of gem quality diamonds from South Africa. I want to say immediately that I do not associate myself with this kind of statement. I believe a statement like that can do nothing but harm, because those of us who know the diamond industry will know that the diamond industry is a very delicately balanced industry. Anything of this nature could possibly have detrimental effects on the whole industry all over the world. However, having said that, I still believe that South Africa as the main producer of gem quality diamonds is entitled to have at least its fair share of diamonds for processing in this particular country. The other day I was quite amazed to see that although the diamond cutting industry in South Africa is being held back because of the lack of supply of raw materials, there is an intention to start a diamond cutting factory in Japan. This will be a joint venture between De Beers Company and certain Japanese interests. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows anything about this, but I should like to know whether in fact any of the diamonds that they propose processing in Japan will come from South Africa? If this is so, it will be a shocking state of affairs. I want to say, too, in fairness to the Government that the Government has made sporadic attempts from time to time to encourage and promote the diamond cutting industry of South Africa. We know, for instance, that five years ago the hon. the Minister’s predecessor granted, I think, nine new diamond cutting licences. A certain number of apprentices were allowed into the trade. I really thought then that this would be the start of a real expansion in the diamond cutting industry of South Africa. I remember very well too raising the matter here just after the hon. the Minister became Minister of Mines. If I remember correctly, he even expressed the opinion that he was surprised himself to see the small percentage of South African diamonds that were in fact processed in South Africa. I do not want to hold him to anything he said then, because he had just come to the portfolio. But I certainly would like to know from him this evening, if possible, what constructive plans he has for increasing the size of the diamond cutting industry of South Africa? In this reply I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether there are any plans afoot for establishing a separate small diamond cutting industry in South Africa? Diamonds to-day have reached a new height in regard to prices. We know that there is a constant demand for diamonds all over the world because of the monetary troubles which exist in the world. I honestly feel that we in South Africa shall be missing the boat if we do not make use of the opportunity now to really expand the diamond cutting industry in our country. I have here a cutting relating to a man who calls himself a world expert and who is not from South Africa. He says—

That is what Mr. Stanley Simons, an American international diamond expert, has said. The advantages, said Mr. Simons, would be these—

In the statement, he goes on to give various other figures, but as I have said earlier on, I do not associate myself with this type of statement as it is here. However, I do believe that there is room for improvement. I believe that if we keep back a far larger percentage of gem quality diamonds in South Africa, we shall find that overseas manufacturers will tend to come to South Africa and start factories here. In the past this was of course very difficult because of the problems of travel and distance, but we know that to-day with the jet age, distance does not mean a thing. I honestly feel that with a little bit of encouragement, South Africa can be as important a world diamond market as Antwerp and America. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the hon. the Minister, who is a new Minister, to really apply himself to the task of increasing and promoting the diamond cutting industry in South Africa. We are very happy with the way the rough product is handled in South Africa and I honestly feel that in its own way the diamond-cutting part of the industry is equally as important. It will give work to many hundreds of South Africans who have proved to be among the best diamond cutters in the world. I can tell the hon. the Minister that some firms in America pay a premium of 5 per cent for South African cut diamonds because of the high quality of workmanship. I think it would be a shame for us to lose this opportunity because as things are now with no licences being issued, no apprentices coming into the trade and the trade unions opposing any immigration, it can only mean one thing and that is that the diamond cutting industry will become smaller. It will happen because we have a certain amount of wastage every year, and on this particular basis we shall find that very soon we shall be in the position in which we were a few years ago. I make this appeal in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister really to apply his mind to the matter I have put here this afternoon and to see if something can be done to increase the diamond cutting industry in South Africa. Something must be done, not over a period of 10 or 15 years, but very, very shortly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has just spoken about diamonds, and I just want to give him a brief reply to that. At the beginning of his speech he said that there was a major increase in diamond production in South Africa, and he quoted various figures in support of this statement. It is true, there is an increase in production, but I also want to point out that the production in respect of which there is an increase at the moment, is not so much that of gem stones, but in fact that of smaller stones; more and more small stones, and not so much large and gem stones, are being produced. In spite of this increase in the production, he complained that the cutting industry in South Africa was falling into decline. He blamed this on the fact that we were not issuing enough cutters’ licences. In fact, there is a cutter’s licence which we can issue, but it is not being made use of. This state of affairs he also attributes to the fact that there are not enough stones available which can be cut. In this regard I just want to mention a few figures. With the exception of a few mines, the cutting industry receives all the gem stones produced in South Africa. In addition to that it is also possible for the cutting industry to obtain gem stones from the London market. I just want to furnish the hon. member with the figures. In 1968 the cutting industry received South African diamonds to the value of R30,375,000. In addition the industry received from South-West Africa and from London diamonds to the value of R5.2 million and R7.5 million, respectively. In spite of the fact that they are entitled to receive for cutting purposes more than a 100,000 carats of gem stones from the London market, they could not make use of all of it. What would be gained by issuing still more cutters’ licences and admitting more cutters, if the existing cutters are unable to cut all the available diamonds? At present the diamond cutters are already receiving the full South African production, but the trouble is that the diamonds they obtain abroad are too expensive and that they cannot cut them on a profitable basis. We must therefore conclude that something is amiss in our cutting industry. It is true that the cutting industry is a very expensive industry as far as wage structures are concerned. These wage structures are, for instance, completely disproportionate with similar wage structures in other countries. The fact of the matter is that the diamonds which are cut here, are only diamonds of one carat and more; this is what our cutters are geared for. Our diamond cutters cannot cut diamonds of less than one carat at all. As a solution the hon. member suggested that two industries should be established: one industry for cutting large diamonds of one carat and more, whereas the other one should be a mechanized industry for cutting diamonds of one carat and less. According to my information the cutting industries in other countries are much more integrated. Over there they do not really have two industries; they only have one industry, and that is integrated. Because of the fact that it is integrated, it is possible for them to do this on a much more profitable basis. What the hon. member is proposing now, is that small diamonds should now be cut by a different kind of industry, but then we must bear in mind that we should also have regard to the employees in the cutting industry. In the cutting industry to-day there is only a limited number of people who are experts and by whom the diamonds are cut. If more cutters’ licences were issued—in other words, if there were more factories—it would simply result in their wages being forced up even further as a result of the competition among the various employers for obtaining the services of these experts. Therefore, to obtain the services of these experts, would only force up the wage structure. The wage structure is disproportionate as it is. Therefore the granting of more cutters’ licences, offers no solution. The other solution is to try to see whether it is not possible for us to cut the smaller diamonds in South Africa. We can in fact do so by making use of mechanical methods and operators who cut diamonds electronically. This is a good solution, but now we are also saddled with the existing relationship between us and the trade union of the cutting industry. At the moment we are experimenting with cutting these smaller diamonds in South Africa, and I want to express the hope that by means of this experiment which is being conducted, we shall have success at cutting these smaller diamonds in South Africa. If we could bring this about —because small diamonds constitute a large percentage of our production—and if we could compete in this sphere with Belgium, India and Israel, we would really have success in building up this major cutting industry. As far as the cutting industry as a whole is concerned, a measure of rationalization has to take place before we can put this industry on a sound basis.

I should also like to say something in regard to sinkholes. However, my time is very limited since I only have two or three minutes left. Last night the hon. member for Orange Grove carried on here in a very irresponsible manner. The hon. member clearly showed that he does not have the slightest notion of the problems with which we have to contend in regard to sinkholes. For instance, he referred to the failure of the Government’s sinkhole policy, and what he meant by that, I do not know. The hon. member also said that thousands of people were still living at places regarded as dangerous. He also made mention of numerous persons who had lost their lives as a result of sinkholes, and he tried to create the impression that the authorities were doing nothing in this regard. I cannot allow this impression to remain. What is the true state of affairs? In the dolomitic area there are several water compartments. There are the water compartments of Venterspost, Oberholzer and Bank. Certain mines were operating in the Venterspost water compartment, and as a result of the quantity of water they had to pump out, these operations became very expensive. As a result of the pumping out of the water, this water compartment was, of course, dewatered, and sinkholes developed there. The Oberholzer water compartment was also dewatered in this manner, the result being that sinkholes developed there. What did the Government do when this matter was brought to its attention for the first time? Two cases occurred, i.e. when the Oosthuizen family disappeared into a sinkhole and when the reduction works of West Wits also disappeared into a sinkhole. Forty lives were lost there. Immediately after that the Government came to an agreement with the mining industry as such, and the mining industry subsequently undertook to pay compensation for the damage caused by dewatering which, in turn, cause sinkholes. I want to give hon. members the assurance that since the hon. the Minister instructed me to deal with this matter, I have had many talks. I also want to give hon. members the assurance that the mine authorities and the Government have in fact entered into sound agreements, and I trust that when these agreements are implemented, they will be to the satisfaction of everybody and that everybody who has suffered damage will well and truly be compensated for it. It is not true to say that many people are living in these danger areas. We evacuate these people the moment there are signs of sinkholes. I have not yet dealt with the technical aspect of the matter and with what has to be done by the engineers and the State co-ordinating technical committee so as to trace sinkholes, and to prevent people from living in such danger areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown asked what the effects of the current gold sales on the free market will have on the life of the marginal mines. In replying to this question I hope the hon. member will understand that I am not commenting in any way or indicating how South Africa is selling its gold. It is difficult to furnish a categorical reply to this question as some of the marginal mines may temporarily benefit to a certain extent from increased revenue from such gold sales, whilst others may derive no direct benefit at all. As the hon. member will know, provision was made in the Gold Mines Assistance Act of last year for assistance in the form of a subsidy, which meant direct payments from funds voted by Parliament to certain marginal mines when their profits drop below a certain percentage, which is something like 9 per cent of their revenue. If the percentage of profit of such a mine should increase as a result of the sale of its gold on the free market, the amount of the subsidy will automatically decrease proportionally in terms of the formula laid down in the Act, with the result that its financial position will remain more or less unchanged. On the other hand should its profits to revenue ratio increase to a point where such a mine becomes a taxable one, it may benefit, because as an assisted gold mine it will be taxed on a special formula prescribed for such a mine. It should be borne in mind, however, that the contributions made by marginal mines to the gold sales on the free market is comparatively small, and that the individual share of a particular mine and the additional proceeds derived from such sales may therefore be relatively insignificant. Moreover sales of gold on the free market may occur sporadically with the result that a gold mine, including a marginal mine, has no alternative but to continue basing its mining policy, in which its operating overheads are an important factor on the official gold price of 35 dollars per ounce. I think the hon. member will agree with me that, taking all these factors into consideration, one could say that as far as can be judged at present current gold sales on the free market will not have a material effect on the life of marginal mines.

*The hon. member for Rustenburg, and also the hon. member for Stilfontein, raised the question as to whether Republic Day could not be made a definite annual holiday for mineworkers. I want to thank these hon. members for the fine way in which they put it. It also became clear this afternoon that members such as the two of them, and others as well, are members who live with the mineworker from day to day and who realize what the real needs of these people are. One is very sympathetically inclined to this matter, and not only myself, but also the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Prime Minister. Only recently during this Session the hon. the Prime Minister, together with the hon. the Minister of Labour, had an interview with a deputation from the Co-ordinating Council of South African Trade Unions, inter alia about this very matter. After that the Prime Minister made a statement, and I should like to refer hon. members to that. I do not have the full statement before me, but only the relevant part. The full statement is in the hands of the various trade unions, and I may just mention that this matter was mentioned at the annual meeting of the Mine Workers’ Union in Johannesburg, at which I was present. I wrote to the Secretary in this connection, and also sent him a copy of this statement. The Prime Minister said, inter alia, the following—

He said this after having argued the matter. He then went on to say—

I think this answers the representations made by the two hon. members.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? While the hon. the Minister is replying to questions now, I should like to mention that a short while ago I made representations in regard to the possible …

Order! The hon. member may not make a speech now.

… possible removal or expansion of the Metallurgic Research Institute. Has any decision been taken in this connection? And, if so, what will the extent of the proposed project be?

This is very good example of how members look after the interests of their constituencies. The hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for …

It does not matter.

It matters very much, because he took that constituency from the United Party! The hon. member came to see me on various occasions in connection with the erection of certain buildings for the National Institute for Metallurgy. I may tell the hon. member that it is essential for the development of our mineral sources in South Africa that the research, the immeasurably important research which is being done at the National Institute for Metallurgy, should be expanded. It is obvious that in a country such as South Africa, which is so richly endowed with minerals, research in that field should continually be expanded. I may also tell hon. members that, for example in regard to uranium, the National Institute for Metallurgy has made very important contributions in the interests of South Africa and of the industry. Expansions are taking place, and land has been bought in Randburg, in the constituency of the hon. member. I do not know precisely where the land is situated, but I have given my permission for the purchase. At one stage there was a possibility that the expansions there would not be proceeded with. The hon. member came to see me on various occasions in connection with this matter. We reconsidered the matter, and, in fact, I submitted it to the Cabinet a second time, and it has now been finally decided that the expansion at Randburg will be proceeded with, and that provision should be made for the planning and the groundwork there in this year’s Estimates. It is a small amount, but a start has been made with the preliminary planning. I hope this answers the hon. member’s question.

Then the hon. member for Rustenburg touched upon a matter which he has brought to my notice on various occasions, and that is the question of a possible sub-bureau at Rustenburg. I am sorry, but unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member for Rustenburg such a positive answer as I would have liked to give, or as I gave the hon. member who spoke a moment ago. This deals with quite a different matter. Sir, one must understand that the decentralization of research brings many problems to the fore.

There is for example, the first aspect of trained staff. Research in regard to industrial diseases is something for which one needs pathologists and other highly skilled persons, whom it is difficult to have at more than one centre. In the second place there is the question of expensive apparatus, which we can hardly afford at one centre, and not at all at two centres. I should just like to tell the hon. member that, for example, the electron microscope, which has just been taken into service at the research institute in Johannesburg cost R35,000, and for the kind of research that would have to be conducted in Rustenburg, a microscope would be absolutely essential, apart from other apparatus. Then there is the question of accommodation for the bureau and for the apparatus. As the hon. member knows, we only recently succeeded in obtaining accommodation for the pneumoconiosis research institute in Johannesburg, which is doing excellent research. I think that this fact and other factors will enable hon. members and the hon. member for Rustenburg, and also his voters in Rustenburg, to appreciate that it is an impossible task to decentralize activities of this kind in a country such as South Africa.

I also want to mention that a clinic was started in Kuruman some time ago, but this clinic is intended to do specific work in regard to the asbestos industry. Specific work is being done in regard to asbestosis and mesothelioma, and at the same time bureau examinations are of course being carried out there as well. It is unfortunate, but it just so happens that as regards the Rustenburg district there is no justification for the establishment of such a research bureau at this stage. I may just tell the hon. member that in that district there are 10 controlled mines, approximately 1,801 white mineworkers and 29,410 Bantu workers under dust conditions, but as the hon. member quite rightly said, the free silica content of the ore in the case of both the chromium and the platinum mines is very low, and the incidence of pneumoconiosis is almost insignificant in those specific mines.

Furthermore I may just mention to the hon. member that so far not one case of pneumoconiosis has been reported in the case of pure platinum and/or chromium mine service. In a recent survey we had made at one of the platinum mines in the district no pneumoconiosis was found in the case of 16 mineworkers with more than 20 years’ service. But I want to assure the hon. member that in the future we will pay much more attention to the other matter he mentioned here, i.e. research into attendant industrial diseases apart from pneumoconiosis. Whether we can do this at a bureau at Rustenburg, is a question for the future. Then, as regards the examinations that have to be conducted, I want to assure the hon. member that the bureau in Johannesburg is continually in close contact with the mines in the Rustenburg district, and that very regular inspections are carried out there.

The hon. member for Brentwood referred here in a very interesting and I think also in a very illuminating way to the pneumoconiosis conference. Sir, one thing that was brought to the fore by the hon. member, and which we should not lose sight of if we speak of an automatic pension for persons who have worked in a certain industry for a certain time, and which we must very carefully bear in mind, is that it became clear at this conference that the after-effects of dust may extend over a much wider field than only the mines. I hope that the benefits which will flow from this conference will be to the good of the entire population, although the primary idea was to be of service to the miner.

Then the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) spoke about the diamond industry. The hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to this quite fully, but I just want to correct the hon. member’s figures. The hon. member said that 60 per cent of the gemstones in the world were being produced in South Africa, and that only one third of them were being processed in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that it is not 60 per cent; I think he had a slip of the tongue there; 16 per cent of the world’s gemstones are being produced in South Africa, and half of them are cut. The other half that are not cut, usually consist of stones under one carat in which the diamond cutters are not interested. I just want to correct his figures; I know he did not mention the wrong figures deliberately; it was just a slip of the tongue on his part.

The hon. member for Stilfontein mentioned the question of post-mortem certification, and asked that instead of the R1,150 which is now paid out to a widow after the death of her husband, and after it has been found at a postmortem that he is under 20 per cent, she should receive a pension instead of the lump sum. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot grant this request, although I have very great sympathy with these widows, because who does not have sympathy with a widow at the sudden death of her husband? But we must understand that we are dealing here with an industrial disease, and with compensation for that industrial disease. The compensation is mainly there because the unfortunate person who got the disease was detrimentally affected by it, and his family also suffered in some way or another, and lost him at an earlier age than could have been reasonably expected. This is the reason for the compensation. In the case of a person where it is under 20 per cent, I think that hon. members will agree with me that this was not diagnosed prior to death; it was most probably diagnosed after death by means of a microscopic examination. It therefore was no handicap while he lived; it did not affect his working capacity. He maintained his family just like any other man as long as he lived. In other words, it did not affect his earning capacity. In the second place, because it is of such a minor nature, there is no proof that the person died at an earlier age on that account. In fact, I pointed out a moment ago that the life expectancy of persons who suffer from pneumoconiosis is virtually the same as the life expectancy of persons who do not suffer from it. In other words, in the case of a person under 20 per cent who dies at an early age, the pneumoconiosis that is found post mortem was no contributing factor to the heavy loss suffered by that family. I repeat that one has the greatest sympathy with someone who has suffered such a loss; one has the greatest sympathy with the sorrow of such a woman and the problems she has in raising her children, but the connection with pneumoconiosis cannot be reduced to a compensatable cause in the sense that there should be a monthly pension. Hon. members also know that the R1,150 that is paid out, is in fact a concession because there was no sufficient proof that the person was entitled to a compensation. I think the amount used to be R960; it now has been increased to R1,150. I am sorry, therefore, that at this stage I unfortunately cannot accede to the request made by the hon. member in regard to this most important matter.

The hon. member for Springs raised two matters. He pleaded—and I think it is a very good idea—for an institute to train people whose certificates, the so-called red tickets, have been withdrawn. The procedure at present is that if a miner is found unfit for underground work or for work in a dusty atmosphere, the certificate, or red ticket, is not withdrawn summarily, but consultation takes place between his employer, his trade union and the bureau, and he is placed in work which will not affect his health, and only then the certificate is withdrawn and only then is he prohibited to work in a dusty atmosphere which may possibly be dangerous to his health. As the hon. member knows, this is to a very large extent in the interests of the patient. But I repeat that this is a good idea. I think we should consider whether training facilities cannot possibly in any event be made available in such cases in some way or other so that such persons will have a better income than they have at present.

The hon. member also spoke about the State training schools and mentioned certain figures in this connection. He expressed his concern about the wastage of manpower in regard to these training schools. Sir, I am also concerned about that, but the hon. member knows the recent history of the State Mining School. At the request of the board I had an investigation carried out last year, as I announced here last year, by a magistrate. That investigation was continued this year, and I already have the confidential reports in my possession. Also, advertisements have been placed and applications awaited for both a superintendent and an assistant superintendent during the past few months. I felt that this was the correct procedure. This is also a new procedure. Previously no applications were called for in this connection. The applications are still under consideration. From these investigations it appeared that certain adjustments had to made. But as regards the training methods I want to tell the hon. member that at present I am not so well acquainted with the matter as to be able to give a final decision in regard to his request that a thorough investigation should be instituted in regard to the training methods. I also take it he does not consider it to be a reflection on the State mining schools, but that, as regards the training methods, he wants to see whether improvements cannot possibly be brought about. Then he raised another matter in connection with the State mining schools, and that is the constitution of the board. As regards the State mining schools, the State is responsible for two thirds of the capital costs and for one quarter of the current expenditure. The hon. member for Springs pointed out that the constitution of the board is such that the representatives of the Government, of the Minister of Mines, constitute a minority on the board. I will most definitely look into this to see whether we cannot possibly bring about a change there, and whether we cannot perhaps have stronger representation there, in view of the large contribution made by the State. On the other hand I want to tell the hon. member that this composition is determined not by way of legislation, but by way of agreement, and it will therefore result in certain discussions.

There is another matter I must mention, and that is the making available of land to alluvial diggers. This is a group of people who are not increasing, but decreasing in number. But it is a group of people for whom I have the highest regard. Our diggers’ community are not the kind of people the public outside think they are. They are honourable, first-class people. If you want to see them, just go and have a look at Barkly West, where I visited them. They are people who have all their children at university to-day and who play a leading part in their local community. I have very great pleasure in announcing that steps are being taking at present to make land available for the pegging of claims by the professional diggers both in the Cape Province and in the Transvaal. The release of an area in the district of Herbert for diggers of the Cape Province will take place on 7th July, 1969, while the diggers of Transvaal will unfortunately have to wait a little longer on account of certain unsurmountable problems. As regards the diggers of the Transvaal, however, approval has been given for the granting of prospecting rights to their company in respect of one of the properties purchased by the State in connection with the Oppermansdrift dam scheme. I may say that also this grant was made as a result of representations made by members on this side of the House, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not mention this, so that the people may know it. As happens in a case of this nature the Department of Mines cannot give the assurance beforehand that any of the properties concerned will yield diamonds in large quantities, but the hope is expressed that at least so much diamondiferous gravel will be found that the lot of the diggers, who found it extremely difficult to make a living during the last number of years, will be alleviated. I should like to make use of this opportunity to stress once again that the scheme according to which mining rights are granted in the traditional digging areas to companies and others, provides that they shall pay a percentage of their yield to the two digging companies, and that this is aimed at enabling them to try to obtain prospecting rights themselves to the benefit of the digging community as a whole and in general. Money coming into the hands of the digging companies in this way must therefore be applied judiciously.

Then, in regard to the hon. member for Yeoville, I think I have given a sufficient answer and have made it very clear what my standpoint is in regard to the proposal made by the hon. member for Rosettenville. But now the hon. member for Yeoville has done something which forces me now to react to it directly. The hon. member referred here in his—I would almost say—tearful plea for a pension scheme for the miners, inter alia, to these proposals having come from the chairman of the mining group on their side, as if that group were so terribly active. His request having been phrased in those terms, it is my duty to say that this is the third session in which I have been Minister of Mines, and I am approached day after day by the mining group on this side of the House and by individual members, but I have not yet made the acquaintance as a group of the mining group to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred.

It probably consists of only one member.

I think it is only right that I should say this after he stated the position in those terms.

While I am grateful that hon. members participated in this debate in this way, I also want to associate myself with the words that were expressed here on the retirement of Mr. Nel, the present Secretary to the Department. As is the case with other members, the thought of a person such as he having to retire makes me sad. Mr. Nel will retire on 1st August at the normal retirement age, and he will then retire on pension from the Public Service after a term of service of 44 years, of which he served 29 years in the Department of Justice and approximately 15 years in the Department of Mines. I think that especially the 29 years in the Department of Justice helped him to keep me on the right track during the few years he has worked together with me. I want to record, also from my own experience, that the Public Service is losing a distinguished official in Mr. Nel. He is endowed with outstanding qualities of spirit and of mind, and he also has valuable academic qualifications.

But a poor Minister.

And an even poorer Opposition.

While I am now referring to his academic qualifications, I think he would have been able to achieve success in many spheres of life, but he preferred to remain in the pure and direct service of the State, and for that we are sincerely grateful to him. I cannot omit to hold Mr. Nel up as an example to the younger officers of the Public Service, even if they have to read it in Hansard, in the sense that he never stopped studying. I think he has set a wonderful example in continuing his studies. He always remained a student, and he continued to achieve distinction. I want to tell Mr. Nel that he has enhanced and has added lustre to the Public Service over a period of many years. I have personal experience of his complete courtesy, his solid advice, and that fine characteristic which should take pride of place in any sphere of national life, loyalty. I want to tell Mr. Nel it was a pleasure to work together with him, and I want to wish him the very best in the years he will be on pension.

On this occasion I also want to extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Uys, who has been appointed as his successor, on his appointment, and to welcome him, not to the department, but to the position of Secretary of Mines. He has had a career of 42 years in the Public Service, only five of which he did not spend in the Department of Mines. I think he is known to all of you as a courteous and well-liked person, and as a man who has great sympathy for the mineworkers. It is a great pleasure to look forward to having him at my side as Secretary of this important department.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 35,—Planning, R13,620,000, Loan Vote H,—Planning, R3,500 000, and S.W.A. Vote 19,—Planning, R114,000:

I want to examine for a moment the question of group areas proclamations under this Vote, the principles that lie behind them and their effects on the housing position. We were told in this House earlier this Session that up to May, 1967, 1,000 Group Areas in 291 different parts of the country had been proclamed and that 102 of these proclamations were under consideration. I see from the Department’s report that up to June, 1968, 1,174 full or future group areas had been proclaimed. Earlier this year we were also told in this House, in reply to a question, that a total of 41,807 families had been removed altogether in terms of the Group Areas Act, or approximately 150,000 people. I need not say, of course, that the people most affected were our non-white groups. From time to time while this programme was being carried out South Africa has been treated to the spectacle of whole families, white and non-white, being summarily evicted from their homes with nowhere to go. Either this has happened because there was an acute shortage of housing or because local authorities had not sufficient land on which to build, and that is why it is relevant to this Minister and his Vote. This sort of thing has now become a shocking reflection upon our national life generally, although I have no doubt that with a degree of foresight it need never happen. There is plenty of money available to local authorities for the building of houses, both economic and sub-economic. We have been told that, and we accept it, but I want to know from this Minister of what use all this available money is to local authorities, who are so often struggling with an enormous housing backlog, even if they are willingly assisted by the Department of Community Development, if not sufficient land is available for the erection of emergency housing because the Department of Planning refuses to make decisions on the allocation of land for housing schemes in terms of the Group Areas Act? We do not consider on this side of the House that these decisions should be taken by the Department of Planning in the first place. The system to us seems to be one of total confusion in certain areas, and I strongly suspect that, in certain places at least, future group area proclamations are likely to be held up for many years, and there seem to be a number of explanations for this. Now the resettlement of non-Whites, in areas which no one at one stage particularly coveted, is virtually complete. Let us get that clear; and to complete its group area system, the Government is now faced with acquiring further land for this purpose and is faced with the difficulty of dealing with a host of European vested interests at the same time. I refer to landlords who do not want to sell their land to the local group areas board, but prefer, as speculators, to wait for a rising market. That is understandable, but it is surely not permissible in terms of the requirements of the local authorities. I make so bold as to say in this House that a large number of these gentlemen who own land on the outskirts of our cities where housing schemes are normally established, are good supporters of the Government Party, and the Minister of Planning, I have no doubt, thinks twice about taking any action that might upset them. He may even be holding back proclamations as the result. I challenge the hon. the Minister of Planning to tell me that this is not at least one of the reasons, although I do not say it is the only reason.

What did you say?

The reason is that the Government has come to the stage now where land is short and in many instances there are vested interests holding up the allocation and the proclamation of land in terms of group areas; and I make so bold as to say that many of those vested interests concern people who are supporters of the Government. [Interjection.] I did not say “most”; I said a number of them. The local authorities are faced with urgent housing problems, and many of them have hardly an acre of land at their disposal for the erection of emergency housing. If you look at the Department’s report which we have just been given, it says here, on page 8, paragraph 86—

So the pressure has come from the local authorities. However, it has not been possible to dispose of all these applications, and then the report says that in order to determine the order of priority, circumstances, such as the need to eliminate points of friction and the provision of housing to meet the demands of development, are taken into consideration. Finally, there is a rather long-winded paragraph about how everybody has to be consulted and everybody has to get round the table to discuss everything before anything is done. I would just simply like to say that when the logical application of group areas removals begins to affect our friends on the Government side as well, then they stall. All their fine principles suddenly look a little shaky and go overboard; and the thing about it is that in certain areas, where this is happening, the people who suffer most are those who are forced to live in shacks and pondoks and housing cannot be erected for them until land has been proclaimed we are getting very tired of it in the Cape Peninsula area itself.

Now, the hon. the Minister of Community Development told us in this House on 21st February that this question of the possibility of planning and land was receiving the urgent consideration of his Department, and, he says, another matter to which they are giving attention is the availability of land. Then he said, on February 21st, this year:

This serious housing shortage is greatly aggravated in the Peninsula area by this Minister’s failure to allocate land. There is a shortage of land. I shall deal in a minute with another of the reasons why this is so. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say that the trouble was that Coloured people kept on streaming into the Peninsula: the faster we built houses for them, the faster they came in. Well, the Government is now hoist with its own petard, because they want to turn the Bantu people out and bring the Coloured people in, but when they do come in there is no housing available for them, nor has land been adequately proclaimed.

In November last year I happened to deal with the case involving 170 people, who were turned out of their wood and iron shanties in Klip Road, Grassy Park. Not only were they evicted but their shanties were bulldozed out of existence. May I remind the hon. the Minister that this particular area of Klip Road falls within the constituency of the hon. Minister of Agriculture? I do not suppose it occurred to him for one minute to come and look at the conditions under which they lived for three weeks, in a ditch at the side of the road. The point here is that there was simply no land available to which the Divisional Council could move them. I have heard people asking why they did not find alternative housing as they knew they were going to be moved, but because of officialdom and red tape there was absolutely nothing this group of people, or any other group like them, could do about it. The law does not allow them to settle where they like and if the areas in which they could legitimately have settled were not yet zoned for occupation, where could they have gone? It is not fair, Mr. Chairman, to blame local authorities because their hands are completely tied.

You cannot even blame Blaar.

Whatever decisions the local council may take and whatever the dimensions of the local crisis, the decisions are taken in Pretoria. That is why in this case, with the Klip Road evictions, the Secretary of the Cape Divisional Council had to fly to Pretoria on behalf of these people who were ignominiously thrown out into the street. He had to go in order to see the reads of the Department of Planning. [Time expired.]

Because my time is limited I shall not be able to react to the hon. member for Wynberg’s speech. I understand that the hon. member for Gordonia will reply to her in greater detail. On this occasion this afternoon I want to say a few words about the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act of 1967. I am doing so as a result of the attacks which have come from the opposite side of the House, since that Act came into effect and also in the debate on that legislation in this House. They foresaw the most dreadful future problems, and they maintained that with this legislation we would totally destroy the economy of our country and totally destroy the industrialist. That Act replaced the Natural Resources Development Act of 1947, specifically because problems had developed in respect of three matters. The most important of these was in connection with the number of Bantu which the industrial development drew to the metropolitan areas. The second aspect was that the location of industries was being controlled inefficiently and, thirdly, the aspect of the decentralization of industries. Certain principles were written into sections 2 and 3 of that Act and in order to implement them the Department of Planning decided to establish a division in the Department for the control of the location of industries. It is this division which has played a particularly significant role in the past 18 months in the location of industries in South Africa. The most important aspect, to which attention had to be given first, was the making available and zoning of industrial land, and taking care of the subdivision of industrial land. Mr. Chairman, we have now come to a point where we can test the criticism of that side of the House against the development which has taken place subsequent to the passing of this Act. In section 3, in which the important principle is contained, we find that it is provided that no extension or establishment of factories shall take place without the approval of the Minister concerned. This is the section to which hon. members opposite referred as if this section and the principle contained therein were to be the instruments with which we would do harm to the South African economy and to the South African industrialist. They also put it to us that it was impossible to achieve success in the implementation of this Act without doing harm to the industries.

Now I just briefly want to point out the most important matters. The first is the orderly location of industries which took place under this division of the Department. I am initially thinking particularly of the metropolitan areas: Pretoria, the Witwatersrand, Vereeniging, Western Cape, Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. Then I, as a rural representative, also find the location of industries in the country districts of great importance.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is probably aware, surely, that Zastron has also been declared a border industry area. We do not have such little faith in ourselves and in our regions. We believe that greater development will take place there too. Now I just want to say to hon. members that, with the power which section 2 affords us, this Department recently succeeded in avoiding the establishment in the metropolitan area of no less than 50 industrial towns. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House must realize this very clearly. With the powers of section 2 we succeeded in promoting the process of decentralization. Section 3 of the Act came into effect. With the powers which this division of the Department received under that section they did a wonderful task, without doing harm to the economy of South Africa. I hope I shall have the time just to put the basic facts to hon. members briefly.

In the past 18 months there were no less than 1,418 applications for the extension of industries in the metropolitan areas. This Department granted 971 of them. All the applications were, therefore, not granted. But after a thorough investigation they granted the applications of those people who, for sound reasons, had to remain there. There were applications for 717 new industries, and 519 of them were granted. Similarly I can furnish hon. members with figures of the non-Whites who applied for employment and the number of applications which were granted. But the important point we want to make is that with the powers which section 3 of this Act affords us, we could succeed in getting along with 18,319 fewer Bantu within the metropolitan areas. If one takes into account that it is an act which has only recently come into effect, this is a great achievement. One may thus look forward to what will happen in the years ahead. On the other hand, the greatest achievement of this division was for us to have been able to prove to the industrialist, as the hon. the Minister put it at the time, that this Act would not simply be applied haphazardly, but in a responsible way, and that harm would not be done to the economy of South Africa. The industrialist realized and discovered that under this Act he could still employ 23,000 Bantu for the extension of factories, and 14,000 for the establishment of new factories, but with the clear understanding that they should realize that in the years ahead they would have to prepare to leave those metropolitan areas, or they would have to apply themselves to mechanization. An important fact for us is that, while hon. members opposite almost succeeded—yes, they also succeeded for a time— in making the industrialist hostile towards this Physical Planning Act, the South African industrialist has now become aware of the reasonableness with which this Act is being applied. They have become aware of the Government’s seriousness about removing industries, which chiefly employ Bantu, from the metropolitan areas. They have developed confidence in this Department to such an extent that to-day we find industrialists leaving of their own accord, with the assistance offered them: for example, at Rosslyn, a border industry area which is over-populated. We find that at Brits, and even at Rustenburg, where we admit that the infrastructure has not yet reached the heights which we envisage, these industrialists are freely occupying those areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue with the subject I was discussing before with regard to the Cape Flats and the development of housing in those areas. According to the local medical officer of health, the population of the Cape Divisional Council area in 1937 was approximately 190,000 Whites and roughly the same number of Coloureds. By 1968 the figures were approximately 320,000 Whites and 700,000 Coloureds. Officials in this area predict that in another 20 years there will be some 500,000 Whites and 1.5 million non-Whites, so that the authorities will have to find housing for another million people by 1988. This is one of the reasons why we are particularly anxious to have some indication from the Minister as to what his intentions are as regards this area. Earlier this year, on March 22nd, in fact, a statement appeared in the Press about the proposed plan for the Cape Flats, which sounded fine, except that a great many more negotiations are to take place before it is finalized. It was a step in the right direction, but I really should like to ask the hon. the Minister why all this will need to take such a long time. It seems to us that everything gets gummed up in the confusion and complex allocation of responsibility between the different Government Departments and scores of bureaucrats handling things at the same time, with respect to the people concerned. There is no doubt, also, where this matter of the proclamation of land is concerned, that a lot of people have purchased what used to be derelict land on the outskirts of our cities. They let it out to people who are allowed to put up structures of the kind that were erected at Klip Road, Grassy Park, until the value of the land goes up. The moment the land becomes valuable, there is an attempt to remove these people. It is in circumstances like these, with great respect, Sir, that the law lends itself to a good deal of abuse.

The Department’s report is very interesting on another issue. There appears to be another reason for the hold up of the proclamation of land for housing purposes in the Cape Flats area. It is reflected in paragraph 83 of last year’s report, which says that gradually in the implementation of their policy the Department came across the problem of whether some of the Coloureds should not be reclassified in view of their assimilation with Bantu. Quite clearly, there is some difficulty in deciding where a Coloured township should be and where a Bantu township should be. In fact, in paragraph 96 of the latest report, the secretary refers to the difficulties of sorting Coloured from Bantu in the Cape Flats area specifically, and cites this as one reason why no finality could be reached over zoning or proclamations.

The hon. the Minister replied to me in answer to a question this session and said that the Department had made a survey on the subject, and had completed its report as to whether or not these people should be reclassified and on the question of Coloureds who have become Bantunized, and so on. Does this mean that there can be no certainty for an indefinite period regarding the allocation of land for Coloured housing on the Cape Flats area until Coloureds and Bantu have been sorted out for purposes of race classification? Can we have a clear statement from the hon. the Minister in that regard? He said that no action was going to be taken. But how are we going to allocate the land and on what basis? Significantly the report also says in reference to the Cape Flats, that new cases have come to light where physical uses of the soil are so conflicting that an overall plan for the areas or regions was first considered necessary. Then in paragraphs 104 to 106 we get a rather clearer picture. The Secretary, in paragraph 104, refers to the use of large regional areas of land and said that they were subject to certain restrictions. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what those restrictions are, because he has all the powers he requires under the Act to get on with the job. I should like to know what the delay is. In paragraph 105 of the Department’s report the Secretary deals with a representative committee which was appointed in 1966 to draw up a guide plan. I have already referred to that. It appeared in a summarized form in the newspapers. In the report before us the Secretary of the Department says that it was necessary to draw the attention of the public to matters to which this committee has been asked to give special consideration. These are as follows: (1) The possible extension of the D. F. Malan Airport; (2) the reservation of glass-sand deposits on the Cape Flats; (3) the maintenance of agricultural areas; (4) the Southern Universities’ Research Station at Eerste River; and (5) the possible removal of the military shooting range at Bellville South to a more suitable site. These five items to a large extent represent in effect, I submit, the vested interests that I spoke of earlier. The extension of the D. F. Malan Airport and the fate of the Southern Universities’ Research Station at Eerste River are obviously serious matters. No one would dispute that. I cannot seriously believe however that the reservation of glass-sand deposits on the Cape Flats, which are presently being investigated by the University of Stellenbosch, nor the maintenance of agricultural areas, which consist largely of a small group of vegetable farmers, mostly at Philippi, and least of all, the removal of the Department of Defence’s shooting range at Bellville South, can in any way be said to be valid reasons for allowing a crisis situation to develop in the Cape Flats area where the proclamation of land for housing purposes is concerned, no matter who is in need of the houses. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that public opinion in the Peninsula area is becoming increasingly hostile to the Minister and his Department, not only because of the delay …

You are just an agitator now.

Order! The hon. Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

I say this not only because of the delay in the proclamation of land but because of the worsening slum conditions on our doorstep. And when slum conditions get bad, we have the hon. the Minister of Community Development stepping in and angrily passing new Bills over our heads to take over responsibilities from local authorities for failing to carry out Government policy. How can local authorities possibly carry out Government policy in terms of group areas or slum clearance or anything else unless the land is timeously proclaimed and planned by this hon. Minister and his Department? I would suggest that it is high time that this hon. Minister told the public generally, particularly in this area, where they stand and clears up the existing confusion that exists over the proclamation of land in the Cape Flats area, for the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I found it surprising that the hon. member for Wynberg, who has just resumed her seat, was now insisting upon the absolutely rapid completion of a report to settle the question of group areas planning in the Peninsula. The hon. member ought to realize, if she has read the report well and understood its principles, that group areas planning cannot be viewed in isolation. The reason for this is contained in the report, which reads as follows—

Now, Mr. Chairman, as far as the way in which land is occupied in the Cape Peninsula is concerned, we are speaking of a problem which has already existed for 40 years. It is a problem which began to gain momentum while the United Party government was still in power. To come along now and ask why it is taking so long and why it cannot suddenly be put right in a couple of years, is political foolhardiness. Then it was asked why there are so many departments. We are dealing with various people, various races and various interests. We are also dealing with various departments. The hon. member mentioned how the Department of Community Development was responsible for housing in the long run. To minimize agriculture and agricultural interests in the Cape Peninsula and to try to present them as insignificant, while these people are producing so much daily food, affords me no indication of a balanced logic on her part. The hon. member herself gave the reason why such a plan must take time. The established development of the D. F. Malan Airport and the glass-sand deposits of the Cape Flats are important. This is a matter which ought to be investigated. It is in the process of being investigated and this will take some time. I must, of necessity, mention this, because it is important. I cannot agree with the hon. member at all that agricultural interests are of slight importance. We agree about the research station of the Southern Universities. But there are still other things as well. Most of the matters mentioned are actually, according to the hon. member, although she did not say as much, entrenched white interests. Consideration is also being given to administration buildings for the future Coloured Persons Representative Council. These are matters which must also be taken into consideration. Consideration is being given to a medical school for Coloureds. All these aspects must be considered. This Committee only began in 1966. It must draw up this overhead guide plan so that we will not have to plan again in 10 or 20 years’ time. After all these responsible bodies had held consultations we have, in this report which the hon. member, as far as I am concerned, did not read properly, an indication that the report may be expected shortly. I have the fullest confidence that we shall get planning here as planning ought to be done, with projection into the distant future. I want to congratulate the Department on having been able to deal with its particularly extensive activities with the same amount of staff. It will be noted that four years ago the staff of the Department totalled 206. At present there are 202 staff members. In the meantime its work has increased tremendously. In addition they have had the Physical Planning Act to carry out. This also entails a great deal of extra work. I want to thank the Department and the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister for their particular interest in regional planning.

Although I want to congratulate them on this, I nevertheless have a problem as far as regional planning is concerned. The problem is that, in pursuance of Departmental policy, an economic survey was carried out in my region in 1966. After a diagnosis was made of the shortcomings and bottlenecks of the area, certain recommendations were made so that the area could come into its own. A Committee of the Planning Council was nominated to go into this report. They made certain recommendations. The Resources and Planning Advisory Council had to undertake the initiation of some of these recommendations. The development associations themselves would initiate certain other recommendations. The recommendations of the development associations have almost all been carried out, but I want to quote a few of the recommendations to the House to give hon. members an idea of what kind of recommendations one gets from such a subsidiary committee. Here are a few of the recommendations: The Resources and Planning Advisory Council must request the Geological Survey Division to make an intensive survey of the quality and quantity of minerals in the area, with a view to the development of mining. A subsequent recommendation was that the Department of Planning be requested to investigate the salt industry, since it appears that that industry is not maintaining a high standard of efficiency at present. A further recommendation reads as follows: Since it is clear that transport and traffic problems constitute one of the most important bottlenecks to the development of the region, it is essential that priority be given to the implementation of a general transport plan for the North-Western Cape. The last recommendation concerns a socio-economic survey of the Coloured population, with a view to the improved utilization of their labour. One realizes, after having read these recommendations, that there are various Government Departments concerned with this, and that for its execution they must make their own decisions. The decisions cannot be forced upon them by the Department of Planning. They are autonomous. Now the question arises: Who must do the ensuing work after such a subsidiary committee has made its recommendations? You may reply: The Development Association itself. I am afraid that, as in the case of all congresses each year, representations are in fact made, but the development association does not have the necessary status, if it has to do ensuing work in respect of such recommendations, which a subsidiary committee has which is integrated with the administrative process of the State. Since they are part of the administrative machinery of the State, I advocate that subsidiary committees, such as the one which was appointed recently in respect of the Western Cape, the Saldanha area, etc., should not conclude their work before such recommendations have gained momentum, and before an effort to activate economic development has not been initiated. The development associations can assist with ensuing work, and can even serve as a secretariate, but I think that such a subsidiary committee should serve as a kind of permanent agent to give momentum to the development, because they would have the necessary status. Therefore I ask that we give proper substance to the co-ordinating function of this Department. Co-ordination is not, in my opinion, simply the gathering together of contact points, nor is it merely a process of making departments aware of one another. In actual fact the co-ordinating department must carry the responsibility of harmonizing the implementation of a task and making it a dynamic process, without making decisions for the various components. I think that in this respect, by allowing them to continue until they have eventually reported on how far the development plan had progressed, we can make subsidiary committees much more useful in the administrative framework of the Department of Planning.

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow the hon. member for Gordonia inasmuch as I also want to raise this question of the speeding up of development. I refer particularly to the Berlin industrial area. This area has now been announced in a rather strange way by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. He made the first announcement to the general public in that he put out a White Paper which detailed the way in which he was going to bring the water required for the area to Berlin. We appreciate very much indeed the fact that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs did that, because at least it gave an indication to the public of what they could expect in that area. However, he mentioned further in his White Paper that it takes considerable time for industrial sites to reach full development. He mentioned that the first site would be established by the end of 1969, and that it would actually operate by July, 1970. We would very much like to see that that is in fact the case. I want to point out that, in the case of East London, we all know that no more industrial sites are available. This is not because so many industries have been established in East London, but because the industrial land there is so limited. We also know that King William’s Town only has a limited amount of industrial land available. What is available is probably more suited to light industry than anything else. Therefore the development of Berlin becomes so much more important, quite apart from all the other aspects which have been mentioned from time to time. I just want to mention that the development of the Berlin industrial area must not be delayed for any reason whatsoever. In fact, it must be expedited as much as possible. It would be terrible at this stage if industrialists were prepared to come to Berlin, and then be told that they cannot do so because sites have not been prepared for them. I see under the Vote of the hon. the Minister that an amount of R229,500 has been set aside for industrial township development for the whole of the Republic. Under the Loan Vote R130,000 has been set aside for the development of the King William’s Town-East London area. I should like to have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that sufficient funds will be provided so that East London, the controlling authority for the development of this area, will not find itself in the position where it will have to stop such development because of a lack of funds. Furthermore, I would like an assurance or an announcement from the hon. the Minister about what the Government itself has in mind for Berlin. Is there anything they intend to establish there from a Government point of view? Wild stories and rumours are being spread about, as is usual, at a time like this, about fertilizer factories, ammunition factories, etc.

We do not make fertilizers.

One never knows, Sir, Sir, I want to refer for a moment to the report of the hon. the Minister’s department for 1967. In that report the general division of the Cape Province into general group areas is set out. We all know that the area west of the Eiselen Line, the Humansdorp-Colesberg line is Coloured. The area to the east of the Kei River is a Bantu area. The area in the middle is a mixed area. This area was again divided by the Fish-Kat-line. To the west of the Fish-Kat line Coloureds were given preference in employment and to the east of that line Bantu were given preference in employment. One must assume from all this that the Coloureds on the eastern side are there on a temporary basis. That is how the department explained the position. But, because certain group areas had been demarcated, and in actual fact established such as Breidbach, for example, and the areas at Queenstown and East London, it was then said that these areas would become fixed for the Coloured people. I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm that that is in fact the position. If he does confirm that, I should like to know whether this is going to be a permanent arrangement, or is this also one of these temporary permanent or permanent temporary arrangements. I raise this matter particularly because of the usual contradictory statements which are made by various Ministers. As I have said, the intention was that the people from the east would be moved to the west, with these exceptions. Group areas have now been established at Queenstown, Breidbach and East London.

But now the hon. the Minister of Community Development during the discussion of his Bill, which passed through this House not so long ago, when queried on the question of the movement of Coloureds, he replied that they will be moved to the western side of the Fish-Kat line. Then by means of an interjection he further said all of them will be moved. I hope the hon. the Minister of Planning will not take this matter lightly, because one can imagine what the effects of such a remark will be on the people concerned. They are already unsettled due to Government policy. Then when a statement like that is made, when they have been given a little bit of security, that these areas are established for them, they are told that they will be moved again. I know the local authorities had to approach the department. They received confirmation that in actual fact the hon. the Minister of Community Development was talking nonsense. [Interjections.] However, I should like to have that confirmed by the hon. the Minister of Planning so that we know exactly where we stand. Just look at the whole process how this is done. King William’s Town was zoned and proclaimed on the 24th July, 1968. It was proclaimed a totally white area and no mention at all was made of the fact of what was to happen to the other groups. The hon. the Minister will say that Breidbach was proclaimed a Coloured area in 1960. But inherent to the proclamation to proclaim King William’s Town as a white area was no thought that the King William’s Town Coloureds would of necessity go to Breidbach. In any case, this whole set up was only mentioned in the report of the hon. the Minister’s department of 1967. This is a report which is not generally read. People do not know exactly what the Government policy is. Furthermore, the Coloureds of King William’s Town had before this proclamation already moved from one area to another area around and in the town itself. Then they were moved to Schornville which, I think, was the third time they had been moved. I would, therefore, appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it that when determinations such as these are made, they are advertised properly so that the people can know exactly where they stand and how they are affected by it. Then they will not get these details second and third hand. Breidbach itself is not a total Coloured area. Only portion of it has been proclaimed as a Coloured area. The other portion is white area. Then there is a third portion which is undetermined. I sincerely hope that the proclamation as applicable to Breidbach will stay as it is except possibly for clarification of the undetermined area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to the hon. member for Wynberg, since group areas constitute one of the tasks which have been delegated to me. She levelled a few accusations here. Amongst other things she levelled the accusation that there was no land available; consequently there were many Coloureds who had been uprooted and who, owing to the fact that there was no land available, could not be re-housed. This is how I understood her charge. Recently she made a similar charge in a statement which appeared in the Press. In that statement she made the same accusations. Subsequent to that she was invited to take up the matter with our Department. But she did not avail herself of this invitation which would have enabled her to obtain the true facts. I should like to furnish her with the true facts this afternoon. It is not true that land is not available; it is not true that, owing to red tape, as she said here a moment ago, the Department of Planning is not doing its work, that planning is not being undertaken and that there is no foresight as regards the needs of the Coloured population of the Peninsula. These things are not true. The real facts are that within the Cape municipal area there is proclaimed land which is still undeveloped. I just want to mention these places. At Newfields, Lansdowne, there are approximately 800 morgen which are undeveloped. In addition there is a part of the Elsies River area, i.e. 200 morgen of the white area, which is still undeveloped. The Divisional Council, the Cape Town City Council and the municipality of Goodwood will have to develop this area jointly. At Strandfontein a further 900 morgen are available for housing. These sites are situated within the municipal area of Cape Town. Now her complaint is that we have not undertaken planning.

There are no services there.

That was not what she complained of. She did not complain that the Department of Community Development or the organizations charged with this matter, were not doing that. She said that we had not undertaken planning; consequently I just want to show her that planning had in fact been undertaken. Almost 2,000 morgen of land is available in the Cape Flats. Now she refers to red tape and to there being a great deal of travelling between Pretoria and Johannesburg for the purpose of obtaining available land. That is not true. But I shall tell her the truth. The body responsible for this development, is the Cape Town City Council The Cape Town City Council does not want to develop that area. It wants development here in the white area. They want to create a situation where the Coloureds, as she says, should rebel against this state of affairs of being unable to obtain housing. They want to lay the blame for it on the Government under this pretence which she is keeping up here. Surely, this is neither right nor fair. She is encouraging them to do so. She should not address herself to the Department of Planning. They have well and truly done their duty. She should address herself to the municipality.

I am talking of the Cape Divisional Council area.

I have not even finished with the municipality and now the divisional council is mentioned. I also want to furnish the position as regards the Divisional Council of Cape Town. In the Lotus River and Grassy Park areas provision has also been made for 300 morgen of undeveloped land. In addition there are 600 morgen of undeveloped land at Imhoff’s Gift. Therefore this comes to an additional 900 morgen. To be exact, a total of 2,800 morgen of land has been set aside in the Cape Peninsula for Coloured housing. That is a tremendously extensive area. I would say that a metropolitan area almost as big as Cape Town itself could be built in that area. Really, it is neither fair nor just of the hon. member for Wynberg to act as she did this afternoon. But she also went further. As far as housing is concerned, the Cape Town Divisional Council has made building land available on the Cape Flats, but the Council wants to utilize that land for economic purposes. I want to lay the emphasis on “economic purposes”.

She also referred to the vested rights which allegedly delayed the proclamation of land. I think she mentioned various sites here on the Cape Flats. All of these sites to which she referred, belong to the State. Therefore there is no question of, as she put it. “vested rights” which are causing a delay. Therefore there can be no question of vested rights which are allegedly delaying planning. There are simply no grounds for her to allege that vested rights here in the Cape Peninsula are delaying planning. That is not the case. All the sites she mentioned, have already been assigned by the Department of Planning for the various purposes for which they may be used.

Then she also made a terrible accusation, which I think she ought not to have made. She wanted to know what the outcome had been of the reclassification of Coloureds, and whether this would now cause a delay in regard to housing in the Cape Peninsula. This is, after all, an outrageous accusation. The outcome of the reclassification of Coloureds who had become Bantunized, has nothing to do with the proclamation of group areas and definitely not in the Cape Peninsula. These people are found mainly in the Transvaal and in the Free State, but they are so few in number and they are scattered over such a wide area that they cannot in any way influence the proclamation of a group area anywhere. I should like to conclude by saying that the overall planning of the Cape Flats has now been completed. The report of the proposed town planning scheme as well as the schematic development plan have now been referred to the Provincial Administration, and we hope to have finality in that regard before long. This afternoon the hon. member for Wynberg levelled very unfair accusations here without being in possession of the true facts. I want to give her the advice that before she indulges in such accusations against the Department of Planning again, she should make sure of the real state of affairs and the true facts, because these facts disprove her accusations.

May I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I only have 10 minutes at my disposal. If the hon. member wants to level such accusations again, she should ascertain the true facts first. If she were in the possession of the true facts, I am convinced that she is such a fair person that she would not level such accusations. I think the request I am making to the hon. member is a fair and just one.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister answer a question?

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he is not prepared to do that.

In conclusion I want to say that Klipweg, to which the hon. member referred here, has already been proclaimed a group area, and therefore it is the task of the Department of Community Development to develop it.

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the hon. the Deputy Minister, one would think that everything is rosy as far as the Cape Flats are concerned. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has read paragraphs 104 and 105 of his own Report, which states that a committee is investigating the planning of the whole Cape Flats area. The hon. the Deputy Minister makes a very rosy report here, but he also has a committee investigating the whole Cape Flats area, taking into consideration the possible extension of D.F. Malan Airport, the reservation of sand deposits and the maintenance of agricultural areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that ground is available and that everything is just waiting for services, but at the same time he has a committee investigating the whole position. This area is certainly not ready and the hon. the Deputy Minister certainly does not know the Cape Flats. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not tell us stories without knowing the facts. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not know his facts. He read from a report but he certainly has not been out there and has certainly not interviewed the people there and has not seen the confusion that does exist as far as the Cape Flats are concerned. I want to make no bones about the fact that there is a lot of confusion. If the hon. the Deputy Minister knew the Cape Flats a little bit better and if he had met some of the people, including supporters of his, he would know of the dissension that exists and he would not make the statements he made here this afternoon. In dealing with this question of physical planning, I want to refer to the report again. This is a remarkable report and in paragraph 3 the following is stated:

Sir, fancy putting that into a report! Surely, the Minister must know that you have your local authorities, your municipal councils, your divisional councils and your peri-urban area boards. Where in South Africa can you establish an industry without authority? This is just so much nonsense. We know that this Act was brought in for the removal of the Bantu from the urban areas. Sir, this physical planning department is jammed between the Department of Commerce and Industry and various other departments; it is a hybrid department which is struggling to exist and gets itself into difficulties. I am not surprised that it is starting to expand now. It was predicted. It now has a new division; they have created 17 more posts in order to implement the Act which, in the Minister’s own words, was passed to remove the Bantu from the cities. This particular department was set up to regularize the establishment of industry. But, Sir, what about the other departments that we have? What about the permanent committee for the location of industry; what about the provincial administrations with their town planning departments? Where does this particular department fit in? It is a hybrid department which is costing the State a lot of money, and because its functions overlap those of other departments, no progress is being made and local authorities have been held up in implementing their plans. Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg brought a substantial case here which the Minister could not answer. He read here from a statement which is not correct in replying to the hon. member. We find that there is confusion all along the line. Then, Sir, we come to the Western Cape. Let me quote again from the report of the physical planning department—

This department has no idea how many Coloureds are available. They have no idea how many Coloureds are going to be brought into the urban areas. No survey has been made in this regard. There is probably no liaison between this department and the Department of Coloured Affairs. We were told the other day by the Minister of Economic Affairs that there are insufficient Coloureds and that that was why we had to bring Bantu into the urban areas, but here in the Western Cape this Minister is curtailing the establishment of factories because Bantu labour may not be used. Here we have a classic case of confusion worse confounded. Sir, what is stated here in paragraph 6 of this report makes a fool of the whole of the Department. It talks here about “economic planning”. How can you have economic planning when you are trying to implement the ideological colour policy of a political party? You cannot do it; it just does not work. Reference is made here in paragraph 6 to bursaries and encouragement offered to students. The whole thing is ridiculous. What is wanted is a little more co-ordination and planning in this particular department. The public, employers, businessmen and industrialists are getting sick and tired of more and more red tape. I think one of our universities in this country should establish a chair for the training of students who after obtaining their degrees, can set themselves up in practice as authorities on the various industrial planning laws in this country, because at the present moment the position is absolutely impossible. If you want to build a factory in the Western Cape, you have to comply with the ordinary building regulations; once you have built your factory you need labour but you are not free to engage that labour. The Minister of Labour will decide what labour you can have. You have to prove to the Minister that there are no Coloureds available and then he will authorize you to engage Bantu labour on contract, or probably that part of it is attended to by the Minister of Bantu Administration. Who knows? Sir, this does not only apply to the Western Cape; it applies to all over the country. When you look at the applications for extensions and exemptions you find that very few applications are rejected. This shows that they realize that it is just impossible to apply this Act. We know that the Act was brought in specifically to remove the Bantu from the cities, but what is happening in practice?

Organized chaos.

When we look at the Estimates we find that one of the items under “miscellaneous expenses” is, “Development of border and other less-developed areas”. I notice that R3,500,000 is going to be spent but no provision is made here for any Coloured area. Provision is only made here for development in places such as Rosslyn, Phalaborwa, Empangeni, Richard’s Bay, Britz, East London, Queenstown, Ladysmith, Colenso, Newcastle, Estcourt, Tzaneen, Pietersburg, Rustenburg, Mafeking, and then provision is made for R100,000 under “General”. I do not know whether this will cover the Coloured areas. The “less-developed areas” referred to here may be the Coloured areas. Surely, at this stage the hon. the Minister, after an examination of the whole situation in his Department with its various sub-divisions, could have told us what he is going to do for the Coloureds as far as planning is concerned. Why cannot we have something done down here in the Western Cape? Why cannot we have some progress made down here? If it is the Government’s intention to bring the Coloureds down here, let the planning department establish an area for Coloured industries here. Let us try to get rid of this multitude of red tape that has been tying up our industrialists in this country. Sir, we are very fortunate that we are a prosperous country; we have gold and diamonds and we have gone ahead. Without this, we would have been a very poor country because we are not allowed to go ahead. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Salt River tried to make out a case here for the fact that there ought not to be a Department of Planning in South Africa. Listening to his argument, one came to the conclusion that he had actually made out a very good case for the fact that there should, in fact, be such a Department. He mentioned quite a number of bodies to which industrialists and others should turn when considering the location of industries. It is specifically the task of this Department to make it easier for the industrialists to decide where he should locate his industry in South Africa. This Department was also established specifically to be able to advise the Coloured as to where his future actually lies. This Government specifically established a Coloured Development Corporation in order to lay the future commercial and industrial foundations systematically for the Coloured as well.

Sir, I do not want to react further to what the hon. member said. It was actually a disjointed argument which it is very difficult to reply to within two or three minutes.

I want to say to the hon. Minister that in the past year I have had the privilege of reading virtually all the studies, in respect of the Cape, made by unversities, by his Department and its predecessor. One gains the impression of a tremendous job of work which was done in connection with these regional studies, the very comprehensive surveys which were carried out into all the possibilities of the various regions, particularly here in the Cape. But after having read it all, one asks oneself whether the time has not come, taking into consideration the tremendous amount of factual material which has already been collected, and since we now ought to know more or less what the potential of each area is, to decide where development could now also take place on a large scale here in the Cape. For me it is becoming increasingly clear that this large province, comprising two thirds or more of the white portion of the Republic, should actually concentrate on those things which it has at its disposal in contrast to other provinces. I think that we should see the development of the Cape against the background, firstly, of the tremendous increase in the Coloured population. While there are now about 1.85 million Coloureds in South Africa, it is estimated that there will be about 5.1 million in the year 2000. We may accept that their places of residence will continue to be chiefly in the Cape and that at least 90 per cent of our Coloured population will still be here in the Cape in the year 2000, so that we will not only have to supply work to 1.5 million Coloureds here in the Cape, as we are doing at present, but we shall have to provide a livelihood for about 4 million Coloureds here.

We must then also look at the other great problem with which our mother country is faced. South Africa’s gross domestic product is now approximately 10 billion rand. The greatest contribution is already being made at this stage by the industrial sector, by the manufacturing industry, but according to the estimates of all our scientists, it will also specifically be that section which will, to an increasing extent, have to take over the role of the mines, of agriculture and other sectors, so that its contribution at the end of this century will have to amount to about 36 per cent of our total gross domestic product. While its contribution at this stage is about R2 billion it will, according to estimates, increase to about R21 billion. Looking at this distribution of our industries we find that, according to production, the Southern Transvaal makes about a 45 per cent contribution in the manufacturing industry, as against 15 per cent for the Western Cape and 15 per cent for the Durban vicinity. Sir, one must take into account that as our industries develop, our imports will also increase to an increasing extent, and as gold disappears as an earner of foreign exchange, it will specifically have to be our industries which will have to find foreign markets.

Therefore my plea is that we should look to an increasing extent to see where we can establish our industries in future and that we should choose the most favourable sites, especially for industries which are going to concentrate on promoting South African exports, and will take the place of the gold mines and also pay for the imports of our industries themselves. Since at present we only have four harbours in South Africa and since an additional large project is now being tackled in Natal, where 800,000 people will eventually live, it is very clear to, me that we shall have to decide as soon as possible about planning the remaining sites in the Cape where large industrial complexes can develop in future. I am thinking here of pleas which have already been made by other hon. members in respect of their specific constituencies— places such as Mossel Bay, for the South Western Districts, Saldanha on the West Coast, and higher up, Boegoeberg Bay near the mouth of the Orange River.

Sir, I think that each of these cases has great merit. Since the manufacturing industry now employs 1.3 million workers and will have to supply work for three times as many, i.e. about 4 million at the end of this century, and since it takes years to plan and develop large urban complexes, I do not think that we need to delay any longer the detailed planning and the final decisions about where these large urban complexes of the future ought to be. I have already mentioned their names here. I know that the Department has already, in many cases, made a general study of those environs, but I think that the time has now come to begin planning there in detail for large urban complexes, as in the case of Richard’s Bay. Not only will the industries establishing themselves there be in the best position to serve our export market in future, but I also think that it will obviate the possibility of someone, who establishes himself here on the Cape coast, competing with, for example, the Vaal Triangle, while he still has all the harbours around Southern Africa from Beira on the one side to Luanda on the other as his markets.

I can give you examples of certain minerals, exported at present to countries in Southern Africa, in respect of which the railage costs are five times as great as the actual cost of that product. In the case of Malawi, the transportation costs are seven times as great as the cost of the particular product. If it were possible for these things to be produced, and if certain mineral sources could come nearer to certain large harbours and urban complexes, our trade with the whole of Southern Africa would thereby also be promoted to a greater extent.

My appeal is therefore that, since we have already made all these studies in general, we have now come to the stage where we must finally decide upon certain places in this large province of ours where the cities of the future are going to rise in order to make provision for this growing Coloured population and also for these export industries.

The hon. member for Vasco has been dealing with the Coloured people in the Western Province, and he made certain requests to the Minister in this regard. I will come back a little later and discuss with the Minister the question of the Coloured people of Natal, and I do not think I will interfere too much with what the hon. member for Vasco has said. But before getting on to that, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell this Committee which universities have received assistance in terms of paragraph 24 of page 3 of the current report of his Department. A special amount of R250,000 has been voted to assist universities which perform meritorious research. Which universities received grants, and how much went to each of them?

Last year I discussed with the hon. the Minister the question of the Coloured communities around the small towns and villages in southern and central Natal, and I pointed out to him that the actual numbers are not known but that many families are involved and that many of them are settled communities, some of them of over 100 years’ standing, and that these communities form integral parts of the communities where they live and that the towns are to a large extent dependent on them for their economic well-being and that no group areas have been zoned for these Coloureds. Some areas have been zoned for the Indians and many for Whites, but no areas have been zoned for Coloureds at all. I told the hon. the Minister then that they had a distinct feeling of insecurity and that they were worried about this sword of Damocles that was hanging over their heads, particularly in the light of rumours which were rife throughout Natal that all these communities were to be removed and were to be concentrated in one area, in the Mariannhill area, and I asked the Minister whether he could tell us what the position was. He told us then that there was an inter-departmental committee investigating this matter and that at that stage there was no report available. I wonder whether this committee has completed its investigation and whether it has reported to the Minister. If it has, will he make this report available to us by tabling it in the House so that these people can get some idea of where their future lies. These Coloured people, I submit, are entitled to some sense of security, and I think the time has now come for the Minister to give them some idea as to whether they will be moved or whether they will be allowed to stay where they are. This feeling of insecurity is mounting and they have no feeling of permanence, and I submit that the Minister owes them a statement. I have, of course, urged the Minister and his Department to leave these Coloured people where they are, in settled communities where they render service and fulfil a function.

But there is another particular aspect which pertains to this, and that is the question of Coloured farmers those people who own land or are perhaps leasing land. That is one question which the Minister did not answer last year, i.e. whether the Government and his Department are going to make alternative land available for any Coloured farmers who are displaced as the result of any decisions taken because of the findings of the inter-departmental committee which investigated the matter.

This brings me to the question of the Indians, particularly the Indians in Natal and, more particularly, the Indian farmers. We tried to get some sense out of the Minister of Indian Affairs during the discussion on his Vote, but it was absolutely impossible to do so. He merely passed the buck, even when we asked him about a township which had been proclaimed, and he referred us to this Minister. I want to ask him what the policy of the Government is, particularly in regard to those Indians who are displaced, and particularly those whose land is expropriated by the Government in the furthering of its apartheid policy; of this myth which it seems to be following.

You are an inciter.

That is all right. Sir, he can say I am an “opstoker”. I am quite prepared to accept it from the hon. member. I know it is unparliamentary, but I take it from whence it comes. It is the sort of thing we expect from that hon. member, anyway.

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria (District) must withdraw the word “opstoker”.

I withdraw it.

I would particularly ask the Minister about those Indians whose land is expropriated by the Government. Many of them have been expropriated in the Willow Fountain area. These people have been unable to obtain alternative land. Is the Government going to make alternative land available for them? In terms of a proclamation recently issued by the Minister, a number of Indians in the New Hanover area will have to be moved; they will have to give up their farms in the interest of the tidy mind the Government has, trying to put everybody in his own little compartment. Where are these people going to find alternative land for farming? Will they get compensatory land? Because these people make a very positive contribution to agricultural production in Natal. I have said it in this House before and I will repeat, that many towns and villages, including Durban and Pietermaritzburg, would starve for green vegetables if it were not for the Indian smallholder and the Indian farmer in Natal. But the Government is slowly whittling them down and reducing the area of land available to those people, and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what his plans are in this regard. Of course, there is the question of the Natal Agricultural Union, and I wonder whether, if he does make any plans in this regard, he would consult with the Natal Agricultural Union in regard to this matter.

A little earlier in the session, I discussed with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs the question of the development of industries in the border industrial areas, and he intimated that this was not really a matter which fell within his purview, but under the portfolio of this Minister, and that is why I raise the matter here. It is the question of development by private enterprise in a border area. We have had various statements by various bodies, the latest being that of the chairman of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries, that he expected that the Government was not going to allow private enterprise to capitalize on the capital expenditure of the Government in these areas. I have on record certain correspondence where this Minister’s Department has refused permission to persons to develop privately in these border areas.

What development was that?

Subdivision of industrial land, the establishment of factories, the establishment of industrial townships; there were two applications for industrial townships in the Cato Ridge area, but both were turned down by the Department. There were applications for the subdivision of agricultural land in the Hammarsdale area which were turned down. Applications for the establishment of factories were also turned down by this Minister. What is the position? Have this Government and the Minister created a monopoly? I asked the Minister of Economic Affairs this very question and he told me he could not answer the question, but perhaps this Minister can answer. Is it the intention of the Government to establish a monopoly so that development will only be undertaken by the Government? Because as far back as 1963 this was the indication, where private persons endeavouring to develop in both Hammarsdale and Cato Ridge were referred to that particular area which was being developed at that time by the Industrial Development Corporation. Is it the intention to create a monopoly, and that private enterprise is not to be allowed to develop, or is the Minister going to carry out the policy as defined by the late Dr. Verwoerd, where he said it was the policy of the Government, and the function of the I.D.C. and of the Permanent Committee, to establish growth points which must then generate their own development? Will the Minister stand by that and allow private enterprise to continue to generate its own growth and to expand these border industrial areas?

This, especially after the speeches we have had from the opposite side of this House, seems to me to be the time for me to enter this debate. The hon. members for Salt River and Pietermaritzburg (District) in point of fact testified here to their lack of understanding of the functions of the Department of Planning, and they showed that they had no idea of what this Department was doing. After an announcement had been made on the functions of this Department after its establishment, and after I had given a detailed account of the functions of the Department in the Other Place last year, and after other speakers had not only expounded fully the functions of this Department but also tabulated them on various occasions, the hon. member for Salt River came along and asked. “Where does it fit in? It has no idea what it is doing”. I shall tell the hon. member what the functions are, but I believe his thinking requires a department of planning so as to introduce some order and co-ordination and planning into his thinking. Let me now tell the hon. member that it is quite true that a Department of Planning differs in many respects from the ordinary department; that many people wrongly regard the question of planning as a dramatic function. But it is not a dramatic function; it is a function which may not be fulfilled precipitately. Festine lente, I think, should be the motto of this Department, more so than in the case of any other Department.

It is so, in any case.

I shall come back to that. In the first place, the Department of Planning —and it is in this regard that we on this side hold such a different view to hon. members opposite—has an obligation not to the present generation in the first place, but to future generations. Furthermore I have to say that the functions of a Department of Planning are a continual process in which surveys and studies constitute a first step. Remember this Department is only four years old. It has to keep up with reality at all times, and care should be exercised that this does not result in an academic exercise only. Let me make this very clear. This is my method of approach in the Department of Planning day after day. One may very easily begin to think academically and very easily start doing hypothetical things, but one function which this Department must fulfil, is that it must be a practical department at all times. Of primary importance is the fact that planning which is incapable of implementation has no practical value. That is why I should like to place strong emphasis on this point, because it should not be expected of the Department of Planning to be that dramatic department, either now or in future, which some people think it is. In addition I want to say that in certain cases the approach and actions, not only of this Department but also of those assisting us, should be such that people do not expect the impossible of us. They must not expect of us to undertake ad hoc planning merely for the sake of tomorrow and the day after, and to disregard the future. If one does not undertake ad hoc planning, it is obvious that it has to be a protracted, lengthy process.

After having said this, I should like to come back to hon. members and help them to find their bearings to some extent. In the first place I should like to refer to the question of regional studies. Regional studies are not something which has been known in South Africa over a period of years. Regional studies are a fairly recent development. This is not an indictment against the Government. It is not an indictment against anyone. Regional studies are a recent development, also as far as the rest of the world is concerned. This is so. The point I am making, however, is that since this is a recent development in the world, South Africa has not been lagging behind, but has also introduced regional planning.

This was started as long ago as 1948 in the Tugela Basin in Natal.

I am pleased the hon. member says “1948”. That is an important date. That was the stimulus. The year 1948, strangely enough, ushered in many things. It stimulated even the United Party in Natal. But I do not want to argue this point now. The fact of the matter is that this Department is engaged at the moment, in conjunction with the universities and other bodies, in 12 planning studies. Planning studies are being made in the Cape Midlands, in conjunction with Rhodes University; in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area, in conjunction with the University of Port Elizabeth. These studies deal with such important matters as, in these cases for example, the structure of secondary industry and industrial employment. In addition planning studies are being made in the Northern Transvaal area, the West Coast of the Cape Province, the Central West Coast, the Central Karoo, the Northern Cape, the Drakensberg area in Natal, the Witbank-Middelburg area, the Vereeniging-Barrage area, the Letaba and the P.W.V. area (the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vanderbijlpark area). The most extraordinary thing is that as far as all these studies are concerned I can give hon. members the reference to the paragraphs in which all these studies are dealt with, as well as the page numbers, in the report they have before them. That report deals with all these things. So much as regards regional studies.

In addition certain investigations are being made, all of them of the utmost importance with a view to future planning. Anyone who wants to undertake planning, without having the answers to these studies, is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, I have to issue the warning that no one should accept that a study will necessarily result in development. No one may accept in South Africa that because a regional study has been undertaken, because certain investigations have been made, because a certain area has been included in the development atlas, development must necessarily follow. The regional study constitutes an attempt to establish the maximum potential of such an area as well as the point on which the emphasis should fall. The fact of the matter is that the potential will be an enormous one in certain regions and a minimal one in other regions. There is no getting away from this. This is brought about by geographic and many other factors. I go out of my way to issue this warning, i.e. that we should not be carried away in South Africa. When I took over this portfolio, I found that any visit I paid to any place caused excitement to run very high. Everyone thought such a place was going to be developed. This state of affairs may not be. We must be practical about these matters and we must realize that by means of these regional studies and investigations the Government is offering maximum assistance so as to bring out the maximum in an orderly fashion, even though that maximum may be minimal.

I have referred to investigations. An investigation is being made into vleis, lakes and river mouths. This includes the Langebaan Lagoon in the Saldanha area, the Bot River-Klein River area at Hermanus, the Stilbaai area and the Knysna-Wilderness area, as well as the Gourits and the Kobie Rivers at Port Alfred. In addition I may just point out that the work of drafting the development atlas, which is going to be of the utmost importance with regard to future planning, is progressing satisfactorily.

But, Sir, this is not all. This Department is also engaged in creating real growth points. Where are all these growth points to be found? One is at Richard’s Bay. The growth point at Ladismith was announced last year or at the beginning of this year. There is Rosslyn in Pretoria. There is the development at Brits and the Rustenburg growth point. There is the growth point at East London, about which I shall say something more at a later stage. Similarly there are Phalaborwa, Pietersburg and Mafeking. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, there is a growth point at Heilbron. We have one or two more. These are attempts made by the Government to keep industries here in the Western Cape, particularly large industries which may possibly move. These are attempts which are being made by the Government and on which I should not like to elaborate now. This is being done with a view to providing maximum employment opportunities to the large numbers of Coloureds in the Western Cape. From the nature of the case the Government, as far as these growth points are concerned, does not want—and this is my reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District)—an absolute monopoly of industrial land and of the availability of industrial land in such growth points. If the Government had created a growth point and had established an industrial area, including the provision of water, lights, roads and rail connections, with loans provided by the Government to a local authority or with Government funds directly spent for that purpose, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the Government to allow other areas to develop in competition with that area before it had been duly occupied.

I spoke of the immediate vicinity.

I am also speaking of the immediate vicinity. The hon. member mentioned Hammarsdale. Surely it would be ridiculous for us to allow competition for Hammarsdale to develop prior to Hammarsdale having been fully occupied. After all, we want maximum development.

It has been fully occupied.

It has been fully occupied. Furthermore, let me now tell the hon. member this. Now I am not referring specifically to Hammarsdale. It is the policy also as regards border area development, industrial development, that there should be maximal development. This means, in other words, that at a place such as Brits or Hammarsdale, for example, no land will be made available in addition to the land that was available at the start. This will bring about the decentralization effect throughout South Africa. That is why the available industrial land at Rosslyn has been frozen. There will not be any additional land. In that way we will have the decentralization effect along with the effect of border area development, and that is taking work to the Bantu in his homeland. The hon. member should not concern himself about this. This does not constitute any desire to obtain an absolute monopoly. This is one of the methods of ensuring success for this policy, as it is in fact succeeding.

Let me now come back to the Department. Apart from these activities, this Department deals with 14 controlled areas. These are controlled areas in terms of the Physical Planning Act. And what is the object of these controlled areas? The object is to ensure that there will be no injudicious subdivision of land, and matters related thereto, for example, the right to subdivided shares in agricultural land. In addition this will ensure that the use of land will not be changed injudiciously and on an ad hoc basis. As I have said, there are 14 areas. Recently three areas were announced, namely in the Transvaal, the Upper Orange River catchment areas in the Cape Province and in the Orange Free State. Why did we do so? We did so because we know that in these areas, as a result of injudicious subdivisions, there is soil deterioration and that silt is being carried down to the Orange River scheme on an alarming scale. This is one of the methods of combating this problem. As far as the subdivision of land is concerned, the whole of the Transvaal was declared a controlled area at the end of last year. Why? This was done because land which we have to leave to our descendants as a heritage, is being fragmented in an alarming and reckless way in South Africa, but particularly in the Transvaal. This Department concerns itself with all these things. But yet the hon. member says that he does not know why this Department exists and what is happening in the Department. But I want to proceed, and all these things are contained in the report. Really, hon. members should be reasonable. I am also responsible for economic planning and economic advice to the Prime Minister. These activities take place within my Department. There is not a single industrialist in South Africa who is not grateful for this plan of development and who does not undertake his future planning according to the details of this plan of development. Many foreigners were surprised when they saw this plan of ours and said: “But let me have this plan. Then I shall know what is going on in South Africa.” Foreigners who are interested in South Africa undertake their future planning in terms of the particulars contained in this economic development plan and in terms of all the other research in the field of economic development, which I do not want to deal with in detail now.

I now come to the question of the Scientific Advisory Council. The seat of the Scientific Advisory Council, the scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, is in this Department. It has been doing brilliant work during the past few years. In the field of science we really started with very little knowledge. As a result of its activities the magnetic observatory has now been transferred to the C.S.I.R., where it belongs. As a result of its activities legislation has been passed this session, with the support of those hon. members, to establish the Medical Research Council. This, as regards medical science in South Africa, is a tremendous step in the right direction. Four national advisory committees have been appointed. Gigantic work has been done. I may say to-night that I shall issue a full statement in this connection at a later stage. During discussions we had, the Prime Minister, as a result of research which had been undertaken by these people, approved during the past week of the appointment of three national group advisory committees for certain spheres of work. I know this is a long name. These sphere group advisory committees have been appointed for biology, medicine and the physical sciences. Why has this been done? Sir, in South Africa co-ordination with regard to research is undertaken by 65 different committees and 160 ad hoc committees. Surely it is obvious that there must be overlapping, that money and expensive apparatus are being wasted. These three national sphere group advisory committees will in future, as regards scientific research in South Africa, render a service which will not only be of major benefit to this country but will save millions of rand as a result of proper co-ordination which will be effected.

They have also made another proposal, to which approval has now been given, and that is the establishment of a central co-ordinating allocation committee for university project research. Hon. members know that large sums of money are made available to the universities. But these allocations must be co-ordinated, and this committee will do so.

There are two further very important aspects. A central research register will be compiled. If a central register is not kept of research undertaken in various fields in South Africa, it is an impossible task to effect coordination. With such a register, which will be available to every scientist or each body undertaking research, it will be possible to check immediately what research is being undertaken, what has already been achieved and what a specific body has done in the process of research. This is a task which they are undertaking at the moment. This is the outcome of the activities of this scientific adviser and its advisory committees over a period of a few years.

There will also be a national register of scientists and technologists. As a matter of fact, a reasonable amount of progress has been made in this regard. This register is being compiled so that we in South Africa may be able to know where our scientists and technologists are employed, what their abilities are, etc. I hope to be able to announce in the statement to be issued on a later date, that this scientific advisory council, along with the various co-ordinating committees, will be accommodated on the premises of the C.S.I.R., although it will, of course, be independent of the C.S.I.R.

Now I want to give hon. members a further example of the vast scope of these activities I am still dealing with the activities of the Scientific Advisory Council. Just take as an example the research which is being undertaken in connection with the framework of research organizations, all those engaged in research, in the Republic. There are nine Government Departments or divisional boards, four statutory semi-Government research organizations, four industrial research institutes, 28 industries, three semi-Government production organizations, five provincial administrations, five museums, two statutory private research organizations, 11 universities, two university institutes and two marketing councils. These make a total of 76 bodies undertaking research. The results of all this research have been consolidated. Now that we have this knowledge at our disposal, we are able to proceed with proper planning.

We now come to the question of staff. I may just give the following interesting information as regards scientific staff. This relates to full-time research. There are 1,237 in Government Departments. If bodies doing part-time research are added, the total is 4,996. However, another interesting fact reveals itself. Of the total number of natural scientific researchers 976, or approximately 20 per cent, were in the service of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. In respect of the total number of researchers employed by Government and semi-Government research organizations, I may just mention that 47 per cent was in the employment of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I should also like to mention a few facts in connection with expenditure. National expenditure came to R55 million. The Government sector spent R49.3 million. Of this amount of R49.3 million the Department of Agricultural Technical Services received 49 per cent while the C.S.I.R. received 41 per cent. This is internal expenditure as well as expenditure on contracts. I have dealt with this matter in some detail simply to illustrate on what a tremendous scale this Department is in fact doing research.

Now we also have the planning adviser of the Prime Minister. We have the planning adviser with the Planning Advisory Council, the membership of which has been reduced to 13. These members have been appointed in their personal capacities. They have to exercise supervision over overall planning and they use sub-committees to do work in various spheres, for example, marine resources, etc. I shall elaborate more on this to-morrow. In addition there is the implementation of the Physical Planning Act. I shall also furnish the figures in this regard to-morrow. This is a mighty organization. Let me say this evening to the honour of the officials that there is neither delay nor problems. We have made good friends with some industrialists who used to be hostile towards us because of propaganda made by that side, and they are cooperating with us at the moment. This state of affairs is a result also of the expeditious way in which that division of the Department is carrying out its activities. Another task of this Department is the administration of the Group Areas Act. Further more, through the agency of the Planning Adviser of our Prime Minister, we have obtained foreign aid in various fields. Let me just mention one further function of this Department. The operational fields of the Department of Planning, the provincial administrations and the local authorities have never been demarcated. I have made a great deal of progress in discussions with the administrators themselves, and fine co-operation, which is being obtained in demarcating these fields of operation, which will be an enormous asset with regard to future planning.

When is this anticipated to be completed?

I have had discussions with the administrators. They had to report back to their executive committees. As soon as I have heard from all of them, we shall most probably have further discussions so as to finalize this matter. Furthermore, I may say that after the preliminary discussions we have had on the principle of this matter, it has now been left to the officials to work out the details. This will not be an exact demarcation, because here we are not dealing with a static condition. But to have guiding lines as to the fields in which the Department is to operate and the fields in which the provincial authorities are to operate, will be a good thing. For the information of hon. members I may say even now—and I do not think the administrators will hold this against me—that my approach and that of the Department of Planning is not to centralize all planning in South Africa in this Department in Pretoria. The provincial administrations have definite functions, with the knowledge they have of local matters, with regard to planning in their respective spheres.

Finally I just want to mention the responsibility we have in respect of those two mighty organizations, i.e. the C.S.I.R. and the Bureau of Statistics. But still hon. members ask me what the functions of this Department are. I think I have explained these functions very clearly to them. I have also spoken of growth points. The hon. member for King William’s Town raised the question of East London and the difficulties there. As regards his concern about Queenstown, Breidbach, etc., I may just tell the hon. member that my predecessor made a statement in this connection in January, 1967, which I simply want to confirm. That statement was to the effect that Queens town, Breidbach, King William’s Town and East London would be permanent and would not be deproclaimed. Therefore I do not know why hon. members have misgivings in this connection.

But the hon. the Minister of Community Development made that statement here last month.

This matter was very clearly put by the Minister responsible at that time. I was not present here to hear what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said. The fact of the matter is that what I am saying here is the truth.

That is what I wanted to know.

I should like to make a statement on the question of East London. I am going to read this because it is important enough to have it absolutely correct. It is in connection with the development of industrial land at Berlin.

In the implementation of Government policy aimed at the decentralization of industrial development to the border areas, the Transkei/Ciskei area is one of the highest on the priority list. In view of its already strongly developed communities, the well-developed infra structure, harbour facilities and its location, the East London/King William’s Town area lends itself admirably to the development of a dynamic growth point. Although the area comprises a small area of fully serviced industrial land, this state of affairs hitherto caused no problem in view of the relatively small demand for industrial land. The recent announcement by the Government relating to the increased incentives, resulted in such an increase in demand for industrial land, that it became necessary to take timeous steps to have sufficient industrial sites available in this area. After a thorough investigation by the Permanent Committee, representatives of the city councils of East London and King William’s Town, the Berlin local authority and the Divisional Council of King William’s Town in collaboration with the Department of Planning, it has been recommended that the so-called “Berlin Flats” lends itself best to development as an industrial area. The proposed area is situated on the town commonage north and west of Berlin town and falls within the area of jurisdiction of the town council. This recommendation has been accepted and the city council of East London has undertaken to develop the area with funds to be made available to it on a loan basis by the Government. In order to enable the City Council to undertake this development, it will be necessary for the area to be incorporated in its area of jurisdiction and an application for such incorporation of the whole of the area at present under the Berlin Town Council, has already been submitted to the Administrator. With the development of this area as a well-planned, fully serviced industrial town with practically unlimited possibilities, no further shortage of industrial sites is expected to occur in this area in the future. Attention is already being paid to the provision of adequate power and water supplies. The Government is convinced that this area is geographically very well situated for large industrial development, especially with a view to its close proximity to the Transkei and the Ciskei which hold the advantage of a large source of labour supply. The Bantu of these areas have already shown their remarkable adaptability to industrial development in the existing industries in this area, as well as elsewhere. With a purposeful combined effort by—

1. (a) the Government contributing financial incentives and the capital for and knowledge of the development of industrial towns;
2. (b) the local authority responsible for the provision of the necessary services as well as the creation of desirable living conditions for both white and Bantu workmen;
3. (c) the private sector establishing itself in the area, and
4. (d) a Bantu labour force combining its services with a will to enhance its usefulness, knowledge and productivity,
   the area has a most lucrative future.

The hon. member also inquired about Loan Vote H where only R130,000 is voted. The hon. member quite rightly inquired whether such development could not be stopped because of a lack of funds. I may inform the hon. member that although only R130,000 is made available in Loan Vote H, arrangements have been made with the Treasury, as a matter of fact the discussions took place towards the end of last year, that if more funds are needed they will make those funds readily available. It is the policy of the Government not in any way to retard the development of, for example, an industrial area.

Then the hon. member also inquired whether we have any intention of establishing factories in that area, factories such as fertilizer factories …

Ammunition factories.

Or something like that. I should like to take this opportunity to inform hon. members about something they already know and that is that the Government does not site factories as such. The only industrial concern I know of that could be sited by the Government, has already been sited for many years, and that is Iscor. I am quite sure that the hon. member and East London would be very much interested to know where the fourth Iscor will be established, but that of course is something for the future.

I did not think there was any doubt about that.

The Government has no factories whatsoever to site anywhere in South Africa. This is a country of private enterprise and it is for the local authorities and the local people to attract the industries with the incentives the Government has given.

What about aircraft factories at some centres?

As far as I know the Atlas Aircraft Company is established at Kempton Park.

*I simply wanted to make the point here that we should not run away with the idea that the Government determines the siting of industries.

Then I should also like to refer to a few other aspects raised here. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked a question in connection with the Coloureds in Natal. I may tell the hon. member that we have already received the report and that I shall furnish him with the necessary reply as soon as finality has been reached.

The hon. member for Vasco referred to the enormous job of work done in connection with regional studies. He quite rightly asked whether the development of certain large urban complexes could not be proceeded with and whether momentum could not be given to such development. I may now tell the hon. member that his request is that these studies which have mostly been completed should be used as a criterion for establishing large development complexes, and I want to acknowledge that the hon. member is right in saying that this is the outcome of such regional studies. The question now arises whether the carrying into effect of the recommendations contained in such regional studies is the function of the Department of Planning. As far as I am concerned, a large question mark hangs over this matter. The local regional development associations, the local authorities and the Government, with regard to what is being done in East London as an example, most definitely have a function, but I have misgivings as regards the fact whether the Department can ever be an establishing department and whether it has ever been the intention that the Department of Planning should be a department undertaking development. At the moment my idea most definitely is that this was not the intention. I am saying this not because I want to oppose the hon. member in his argument or because I cannot see the importance of what he said, but I am speaking only of this one single question whether this should be the work of the Department of Planning. It is in fact true that the hon. the Prime Minister has instructed the Planning Advisory Council to establish a physical development plan for the entire country, particularly as far as the future is concerned, but whether the individual or local developments which flow from such regional studies belong with this Department, is something about which I really have my misgivings. The hon. member for Gordonia spoke in the same vein and asked in addition that the auxiliary committees should not be dissolved before the work had been completed and before the recommendations had been implemented. I may tell the hon. member that work in respect of certain of the aspects he mentioned, is already being done, and as our Department has a co-ordinating function, it is the policy that the new Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister should create the machinery so as to enable us to consider the implementation of certain of the recommendations of these regional studies.

The hon. member for Smithfield made a valuable contribution here with regard to the implementation of the Physical Planning Act, and he also quoted certain figures. I shall check the figures and after I have done so I shall confirm tomorrow what the position is with regard to both the proclamation of industrial land as well as the implementation of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, and I shall indicate certain general guiding lines at the same time. However, I shall leave it to the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal in greater detail with this particular matter, especially as regards the yardsticks at present applied by the Department as regards these section 3 cases as well as the investigations they are doing in this connection. I should also like to confirm the point which the hon. the Deputy Minister made here in reply to the accusations of the hon. member for Wynberg. It is shocking when one gets a plea such as that of this hon. member which she based on the statement that sufficient land was not available here in the Cape Peninsula for housing for the Coloureds. Information in this connection is freely available and the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that 2,800 morgen of land was available. This is proclaimed land which is undeveloped as yet.

What sort of ground is it and where is it?

It is situated within the Cape municipal area and the divisional council area. If the hon. member for Wynberg did not want to go to the Department, she could have taken this matter to her associates in the Cape Town Municipality. She could also have gone to the divisional council, because these figures are no secret.

You are missing the point. What sort of ground is it and where is it?

As far as I know every morgen of this land is suitable land on which decent dwellings can be built. However, those dwellings must have water and lights and must be provided with other services, and it is not the function of this Department or a Government body to do so. It is the function of the Cape Town Municipality and as soon as these services have been provided, the houses can be built. There is more than enough room for accommodating these people. According to my estimates, approximately one-quarter of a million people can be accommodated on 2,800 morgen. In spite of this fact we are still being accused continually of land being unavailable. I do not think this is in accordance with the facts which have been given here.