Last night the hon. the Minister of Community Development thought fit to make public in this House a letter he had written to me. In that letter he referred back to the debate on the Motion of Censure, at the beginning of the Session, and said that I had allegedly made a private discussion between us public in the House. Thereupon the hon. the Minister told me that in future he was not going to speak to me. Well, I think he should speak to me again in the course of time, because I feel extremely bad about the fact that he does not want to speak to me. You see, Sir, since the Minister said that he no longer wanted to speak to me, there are so many other people that now want to speak to me. Many specifically thought that the hon. the Minister and I were on a very friendly footing. Last night the Minister went further and said that if I did not apologize to him he was never going to greet me again either. Well, I think he will just have to, because when I drive down Adderley Street in future I shall almost feel like a member of the Royal family—so many people will want to greet me.

What are the facts of this matter? Earlier this year I made a friendly request to the hon. the Minister through the post to reconsider an application for a permit for Chinese to appear at a certain billiard saloon in Port Elizabeth, a request that was originally refused. I said here in the House that the hon. the Minister had written me a very friendly reply to that. In it he informed me that the matter was under consideration. Two months passed. And then one day I bumped into the hon. the Minister outside here and asked him immediately what had happened about the relevant application for a permit. In his quite customary, nonchalant manner he replied: “Myburgh, I have lost your letter; you can wallop me in the House of Assembly about it.” But in his letter he states that I was the one who spoke of “walloping”; Let me state dearly that in my speech there was no reference to a private discussion between us. I would never dare to make a private discussion involving the hon. the Minister public in the House—it is usually of such a frivolous nature that one would get into trouble if one were to do so. What must a man do if he is a Member of Parliament and writes to a Minister about a matter, and it takes two months before there is any reaction? What the Minister told me is the only reply I received from him. And that is all I mentioned in this House. In his letter of yesterday he states that I met him and his wife outside here. That is correct. But that happened after I had met him early that morning, after we had gathered here. In his letter to me the hon. the Minister states (translation)—

Well, that is what I did. If the hon. the Minister looks at the Hansard report of my speech he will see that I attacked him on his incompetence in respect of a very ticklish problem that developed in Port Elizabeth. In this House the Minister accused me, or the United Party organizer, or the English Press representative, of being the cause of it. But the hon. the Minister surely knows that he was the one who allowed the matter to be delayed. Then he came along with all kinds of excuses about an official who did not know how to handle the matter, that the permit should have been sent through to him, and that this had not been done. When the hon. the Minister saw that that did not work, he changed his policy and said that the status quo must be maintained and that no one, therefore, need apply to him for a permit. That was the problem that developed in Port Elizabeth, and it was as a result of the Minister’s incompetence in this connection that I brought to his notice how such a ticklish problem should be handled. On a later occasion the hon. the Minister said that “He is inundated with applications for permits from Port Elizabeth”, that he had spoken to the City Council and then decided that the procedure could simply be amended and that no one need apply to him in future. What nonsense! That hon. member was, on occasion, an M.P.C. in Port Elizabeth, and an inhabitant of the city. It was not necessary for him to query the matter with the City Council or to listen to them in respect of the position of the Chinese in Port Elizabeth. But he allowed this matter to develop in the election, in the hope of obtaining a number of votes by showing the people that they were applying apartheid to the Chinese. But when they saw that it was not working, the Minister, changed his policy.

I said I was sorry—in fact, this is, to a certain extent, a sad day for me—that I must now take my leave of the hon. the Minister, that we are no longer on speaking terms, and that he is not going to greet me again either. I regret it, so much the more because the hon. the Minister has been a wonderful influence on me intellectually. He is an example of fine manners, one of the supreme examples of …

Order! The hon. member must not become personal now.

I do not want to be personal, Mr. Chairman. All I want to say is that I regret that our association is now going to be terminated. The hon. the Minister’s letter to me is now recorded in the annals of Hansard. But in reply to that I also wrote a letter to him, and it reads as follows—

In recent times we have grown accustomed to this bombast on the part of the hon. member for Newton Park. He nuts me in mind of the story about the frog that wanted to puff itself up to the size of an ox, and we know What happened to that frog. He must watch out; he will also, politically speaking. burst apart. I leave him in the safe hands of the hon. the Minister, who will know how to square accounts with him.

The last day or so we have heard a great deal here, from hon. members opposite, about housing crises. I want to level the accusation at them that I have never witnessed more negative, destructive and gossipy behaviour than they have displayed in these last few hours of the debate. We do, in fact, have housing problems; we do not deny this, but to what may it be ascribed? These housing problems are attributable to our country’s rapid development in recent years, development that is attributable to this Government’s positive policy. This rapid development has entailed an increase in the population, a higher standard of living and consequently more and better houses that were needed. From the hon. the Minister we heard figures relating to what has been done in spite of our limited funds and a shortage of skilled staff. I want to say that if our Opposition wants to view the matter honestly and compare our housing problems with those of other countries in the world, we have no reason to be ashamed. I want to say that the housing position in South Africa compares wonderfully with that of any country in the world. The Opposition must keep quiet about housing problems, because their history is a black one. In the days of their rule we knew of the hovels and the mixed habitation, and they made no effort on their part to solve these problems. The city councils in whose jurisdiction we have housing problems to-day. are the city councils governed by their politically kindred spirits, but there is the finest co-operation between the Department of Community Development and those city councils that are well-disposed towards us. I can speak for my own constituency. We have a large town, Worcester, that has grown tremendously. There are many housing problems—and I admit it—that the Minister is aware of. but the fact that the officials of his department and the town council are well-disposed towards each other is resulting in the gradual solution of these problems. There is at least an attempt at co-operation and an endeavour to make use of the fine opportunities the department offers to the city councils for solving housing problems and establishing good housing for their inhabitants.

I should like to mention a point or two that I regard as a further fine example of the good disposition of this department. You know that there are economic houses, and the inhabitant. the lessee of that economic house, may purchase it if he deposits R200. Sir. where can one purchase a good three-bedroomed house to-day with a deposit of R200, and then pay it off on terms that are less than the rental one pays to-day? I think the Opposition ought to be ashamed of themselves in accusing this Government, the department and the hon. the Minister of hot regarding the housing conditions in South Africa in a sufficiently serious light, and of not doing their share in giving our people proper accommodation. I leave the Opposition further in the hands of the hon. the Minister.

I should like to bring one or two small matters to the Minister’s attention. Yesterday a deputation from the Worcester Town Council had am interview with the Deputy Minister of Transport, and I want to tell you, Sir, that we obtained a very sympathetic hearing from him. The question concerned the location of a stretch of national road that is actually preventing the municipality of Worcester from carrying out its necessary housing plans. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not back up the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport so that that matter can be expedited and this big housing project that town wants to tackle can become a reality, and so that we can provide houses for those people who do not yet have proper accommodation.

The second point I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention concerns the question of old age homes. In many rural towns one has church associations or private bodies that collect money to donate to old age homes, for the purpose of providing more facilities, and even a larger room for the old people. I think I am right in saying that the National Building Commission would rather use this money to give a beautiful appearance to an old age home. Sir, that is very fine; we all like to live in a lovely house, but these old people, who in many cases spend a large mart of their day in their rooms, are more interested in a larger room, with a little more comfort and perhaps one or two extra washing and toilet facilities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible, where private bodies are collecting money for and contributing to old age homes, to use that money to give larger rooms to the aged and perhaps a little more comfort within the home.

Sir, we know that many sub-economic houses are being built. We know that the interest rate is very low. We know that there is not a great measure of luxury in such a house, but I nevertheless want to ask one thing: I notice that the front and back doors of these sub-economic houses have no shelter against wind and weather. We are negotiating with the Department, and I wonder whether it is not possible for these sub-economic houses to be provided with a shelter at the front and back doors, because I can tell you, Sir, that I have seen how inhabitants of those houses have frequently had to shift their furniture when the wind, particularly in the Cape where the Northwest wind blows very strongly, drives rain in under the door.

In conclusion, just one further problem; I do not know whether this falls within the hon. the Minister’s province. It concerns Coloured housing. If you decide that I am out of order, Sir, I shall resume my seat. There is a severe housing need for Coloureds, as you know. There are certain undertakings that are anxious to build houses for their Coloured employees, provided the city councils provide them with the necessary land. I have here in my band a letter from a firm which would very much like to build 25 houses for its Coloured staff, but the problem is that Housing Act does not allow a private white business undertaking to own land in a non-white area, and then to build houses there for their non-white employees. I wonder whether I should not simply give this letter to the hon. the Minister for private discussion, to see whether we cannot do something in that connection. Good Coloured employees in a town such as Worcester move to the Cape because they do not have proper housing.

Sir, quite recently the hon. the Minister adopted What I considered to be a very sensible attitude about the Chinese community, and I want to ask him if he will not adopt the same sensible attitude with regard to Indian doctors who are practising in areas for which they are disqualified by the Group Areas Act? The hon. the Minister does say that his Department adopts what he calls a sympathetc attitude and that where there are no members of a specific population group available to serve their own community, applications for permits are granted. But there are cases, Sir, where applications have not been granted and where Indian doctors who have been performing a very valuable service indeed by looking after hundreds of thousands of Africans in areas Where they are obviously disqualified as Indian persons, have not been granted permits. I want the hon. the Minister to consider seriously adopting a status quo attitude as far as these medical men are concerned. At the moment all of them are under threat of being removed under group area laws. I can mention to the hon. the Minister that there are two Indian doctors at Bergville and Mooi River who used to serve a population of some 200,000 Africans and who will now have to move. There is another Indian doctor at Cato Manor who is serving thousands of Africans. There is also an Indian doctor in Boksburg who had been fined for being in an area for Which he was disqualified, but subsequently he has been allowed to remain. There are three Indian doctors in Kimberley and they are serving 68,000 Africans and 28,000 Coloured people. There are no Coloured or African doctors who can serve these people and I cannot see why they have to go through this whole business of being dragged to court and appealing for permits to stay. There should be a status quo attitude and no prosecution should be instituted by the hon. the Minister’s Department without it being referred to him so that he can see whether the status quo can be maintained or not.

I want to return to a subject on which I started yesterday, but did not have the time to complete. That is the dreadfully inadequate housing for Coloured people in the greater Cape Town area. I pointed out that the estimates, and they are very conservative estimates, have so far revealed that there is a shortage of some 33,400 houses. Most of these municipalities to which I have referred to, have closed their waiting lists. Clearly therefore these numbers are under-estimates. There is a tendency to blame the situation on the influx of Coloured people into the greater Cape Town area from our country districts, but I want to point out that migration from rural to urban areas is a natural migration and is economic. It is obviously caused by the fact that the cash wages in Cape Town and in the industrial areas such as Bellville, are much higher than the wages which are being paid on the farms. In any case, these people are entitled to move, they are entitled to improve their conditions just as the Whites in South Africa have moved from the rural areas to the urban areas in order to improve their economic conditions and to improve the future opportunities for their children.

One other matter has caused the trouble and that is the group area removals which are going on in Cape Town and environs where people who are adequately housed have to be moved to the Coloured areas for ideological reasons. There are people who are adequately housed; even in District Six. They are being removed although they have decent housing. I understand that one half of the housing which is being built by the Cape Town Municipality is being taken over to rehouse people who were moved under group area removals. I think it is palpably absurd to move people who are already housed, some of whom are adequately housed and others not so adequately, but who are nevertheless housed, before one has even begun to look like catching up on the backlog in housing.

The other day I went to visit the Bellville transit camp. I must say that I am in full agreement with the wife of the priest working in that area Who said the Bellville transit camp is a disgrace to South Africa. It is a disgrace to our country and I would like the hon. Minister to take a morning off and take a look for himself. I know that the Secretary has been there and I am surprised to find that he wrote a letter wherein he said he considered the transit camp as being adequate. He also said it was meticulously clean. For his information I want him to know that the day after the letter from the wife of the priest who works in that area appeared in the paper, lorries arrived on the scene and rapidly cleared away all the accumulated garbage before the Secretary arrived to inspect. People living and working in these areas saw these lorries arrive to clear up all the garbage before the Secretary arrived.

It is another one of your stories.

The hon. the Minister knows that I do not come to him with stories which subsequently prove to be untrue.

How many lorries were sent there?

The point is that there are anything between 2,000 and 3,000 people living in tin shacks in that area. There is no ventilation, there as no running water except for the troughs Which have been provided and which serve for everything, for washing people, for washing clothes and for washing food utensils. I can also tell the hon. the Minister that the communal lavatories are also pretty awful. In any case, this transit camp which has been there for nearly three years, is not a camp which should exist on the edge of one of South Africa’s most go-ahead industrial areas, namely Bellville. Bellville has an industrial area which was established nearly 20 years ago. I want to know how it is that there is no forward planning for the workers who are quite obviously going to come in in response to the demand for their labour and who are going to be paid decent wages. Most of the people living in this rotten little transit camp are people who can well afford to pay rental for at least a sub-economic house. At the moment they are paying R1 a week for the shacks they have erected themselves. I found that 19 People were living in one shack of about 17 feet by 17 feet, children, old people and the working head of the family. I understand that practically everybody who lives in that camp has a head of the family who is employed in the area. It is not a question of unemployed people flocking in and establishing themselves in this camp. To get a permit to put up a shack on the site requires proof that the man is ordinarily employed. This camp has been there for nearly three years. There is talk that there are houses planned and that it is planned to start bousing these people but I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is ever going to catch up on this backlog. I want to say to him that he should out an immediate stop to removals under the Group Areas Act until he has managed to rehouse all the people who are either living in shacks in transit camps or are living in shacks which are being set up in the back yards of the existing Coloured houses in the townships. I am told that when a young Coloured couple gets married in the Cape Town area to-day there is absolutely no chance whatever of them finding any housing. They either stay with their parents or set up a shack in their parents’ back yard or else they move to one of these terrible transit camps. If one flies over this area and sees it from the air. as I have done, and walks through it as I have done one cannot but reach the same conclusion as the writer of the letter, namely that this camp is nothing more or less than a disgrace to South Africa in the 1970s.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that when that letter appeared in the newspaper, which was the Cape Times I think, I phoned the Secretary of my Department on the same or on the following day and asked him to visit that transit camp with the regional head of my Department in Cape Town. They did so and I warned nobody about their visit. It was therefore impossible that somebody knew of it beforehand, unless the City Council of Bellville acted of their own accord. I asked nobody to improve the conditions there. I asked Mr. Niemand of my Department to go and investigate and to give me a full report on the matter. He gave me a full report on the matter and I am quite satisfied that it is an unhappy situation. We are having these transit camps at the moment as there are transit camps in Israel too at the moment.

For other reasons.

Not for other reasons at all. I am quite willing to compare our transit camps with transit camps in Israel.

As far as the Indian doctors are concerned, I can tell the hon. member that I am dealing with this matter personally. I am looking into the position at Kimberley myself and I am quite satisfied that no injustice is being done to any Indian doctor in South Africa. I went down to Kimberley and made a personal inspection of the alternative accommodation that was offered to the Indian doctor in Kimberley. I can tell the hon. member that that alternative accommodation is as good as the accommodation he has at the moment, if not better.

What about the community he is serving?

He will be much nearer the community he is serving. The fact of the matter is that he does not want to comply with the law and I am afraid that he must either agree or be prepared to face charges in court.

As far as Coloured housing is concerned, I want to say that it is a matter that I will discuss later in my reply. I am not going to argue with the hon. member about District Six and I will tell her why. We disagree with the hon. member entirely about the housing conditions in South Africa. This Government, my party and I are in favour of separate housing for the different groups. She does not believe in it. She is quite satisfied that everybody must live together. She is quite happy about that. She can buy her apartheid in Houghton, but we do not believe in it. So why should I argue with her about District Six?

How many Whites are living in District Six?

The last I heard, was about 480 families. But that does not matter. All those people will obtain better accommodation. It is now argued that District Six must be kept as it is. I tell the hon. member that the transit camp at Bellville may be a disgrace, but District Six is the biggest disgrace to this country. It is a slum area of the worst kind, where they smuggle with liquor, where prostitution is just the ordinary course of the day, and so on. For her to say to me that we must keep people there without having a city renewal scheme, is so much nonsense and ridiculous. It has been decided that we want communities to live separately. I do not want to argue with the hon. member. We will fight elections about that question. I will return to Coloured housing later in my speech.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Worcester for his kind words. I also want to thank him and his city council for the very good co-operation we are getting from them as far as housing is concerned. If all the local authorities were as willing and co-operated as well with my Department, we would have very little to complain about. As regards the housing project which is at present being delayed by the Department of Transport, I just want to tell him that I shall give it my attention. However, in the recommendations of the Niemand Commission on the more rapid development of townships, etc., certain very drastic recommendations are made which are at present receiving the attention of the Cabinet and about which finality will be reached within the next few weeks—I hope it will not be longer than six weeks.

As far as his plea for better facilities for homes for the aged is concerned, I want to say that he came to discuss it with me personally. His question was, where the local organizations such as the church or the A.C.V.V. collect money, why cannot they improve the position? I immediately saw his point and submitted it to the Housing Commission. I think we have made our point to the Housing Commission, with the result that it will be done in future.

As far as Coloured housing in Worcester is concerned, I shall again discuss the matter with him personally. I think it will serve no purpose for the two of us to discuss the matter further here. I shall gladly receive him personally in order to discuss the matter.

Before I continue replying to individual members, I should like to make the following statement. The hon. member for Yeoville telephoned me this morning to say that he felt very upset about my having said last night that he had written pornography. I then told him that I had not said that. He then said that it could very easily be inferred from what I had said. I consulted my Hansard and I agree with the hon. member that he is correct and that it can be inferred from what I said. Now I just want to make it very clear that I did not mean it in that way, and that such an inference would be incorrect. I told the hon. member what caused me to refer to it, and he understood. I now want to express my regret at having in the heat of the debate said something about the hon. member from which incorrect inferences may be drawn.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to express my appreciation for this reaction of the hon. the Minister. This is what I expect from an honourable man. As a result of that statement by the Minister I replied to him yesterday evening. I also used very strong language. I said, among other things, that he was associated with publications which were dirty. I think that was a very strong term and I, in turn, want to say that I regret having said that.

Mr. Chairman, peace has broken out. I hope it will not last too long. [Interjections.]

*I just want to address one last word to the hon. member for Port Natal. During the past two years, since I became Minister, he has levelled the basest of accusations at my Department and some of its officials. He assured me that he did so during the previous three years as well. This House now knows that he was unable to produce a single item of proof under my Vote to substantiate any of those allegations he made. Now I want to say that I have every confidence in all the regional offices of the Department of Community Development and their chief officials, as well as in my ministerial officials. Of course there are people in our Department who are not doing their duty. There are also people who are dishonest, as in any other Department, but we have never hesitated, when we came across anything of this kind, to report the matter to the police.

This afternoon I want to refer in particular to my Durban office. The regional office in Durban is working under the most difficult of circumstances. They are being provoked in an almost inhuman way by certain of the Durban newspapers, and by the hon. member for Port Natal. I want to inform my regional representative and his staff in Durban that I want them to know that I have every confidence in them. I want to thank them for their good and unselfish service. In the same process I want to thank the other members of Parliament for Durban very sincerely for the decent way in which they co-operate with my regional office.

I come now to the various points raised by hon. members I want to begin with the hon. member for Jeppes. An urban renewal scheme is at present being undertaken in Jeppe. It is quite true that the Development Board is building flats there which will be available to people in a higher income group than those normally assisted by the Housing Commission. The Development Board does not provide housing for the middle and lower income groups. They are there to raise the standard of that area when urban development is undertaken. That is why the Development Board is building flats there for income groups that can pay rents of R100 to R150 per month. On the other hand the Johannesburg City Council, in conjunction with my Department, is building flats which the middle and lower income groups will be able to afford. It is entirely correct, as I told the hon. member, that the Johannesburg City Council has already received a loan of R871,000 from the Housing Fund of my Department. They are proceeding with that scheme. They have asked for certain changes. They asked for additional funds. This will be considered by the Housing Commission, but there will be more than sufficient accommodation for the groups mentioned by the hon. member. The hon. member gave me the impression that he did not want to see flats for the higher income groups in Jeppe. I hope that that was an incorrect impression.

Not at present.

Sir, the hon. member will have to go and thrash it out in the provincial election. We have it on record now that he does not want to see any flats for the higher income group in Jeppe, although more than sufficient provision is being made for the lower income groups in Jeppe. I want to leave the hon. member at that.

I come now to the hon. member for Germiston. He made certain interesting suggestions. One suggestion was that renovation should be taken into account for income tax purposes. His argument was that we should assist people in preventing their houses from becoming dilapidated. That is why we must give them forms of encouragement to keep their housing in a good condition. The hon. member for Parktown suggested a few very interesting schemes here to arouse interest among the less well-to-do people in regard to the position of housing, to invest money in building societies at an early stage, etc. I want to say both to him and to the hon. member for Germiston that I found their suggestions very interesting and that I shall, at the first possible opportunity, submit them to the Housing Commission for investigation. If their finding is favourable, I shall also discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance to hear whether it is possible. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Parktown would make a written suggestion to me. I have just sat listening to his suggestions, it seems to me that he is very conversant with those matters. I should like to have something from him in writing about the schemes he mentioned were in progress in Germany.

I come now to the hon. member for Uitenhage. He, like certain other members, also advocated that the R100 limit for sub-economic housing should be raised. He, as well as the hon. member for Tygervallei, made the point that people who obtained slightly more than R100 had to vacate those sub-economic houses. I want to tell them that that is not the case. Those people can remain there provided they pay 30 cents rent for every rand which their income exceeds R100. Until they have reached an economic level, they can remain there. A little later when I come to the hon. member for Tygervallei I shall explain a few other schemes in this connection, in regard to how we are trying to deal with the position so that people are not evicted as soon as they exceed that limit. The hon. member asked me about Cradock Street in Uitenhage. I want to thank him for the pressure which he exercised on his local authority. He is already aware of this, but it is interesting to note that a scheme for Coloureds has just been approved in Uitenhage, comprising 500 sub-economic houses and 500 economic houses. As soon as the scheme has been completed, Cradock Street in Uitenhage will have been cleaned up completely.

†The hon. member for Parktown also dealt with the question of people with two children earning R225 or with more than two children earning R300 who, when their income increases a little, must be put out of their houses. The problem exists, but it works only in theory and not in practice. I am not going to say that the limit of R225 and R300 must stand for ever. These limits are considered from time to time by the Housing Commission: they are discussed with the Treasury and they try to arrive at a proper level. I want to tell the hon. member that we are waiting for the census figures to see in what income groups both the Whites and the non-Whites, although we are now dealing with White housing, are divided and how many there are in each income roup. As soon as we have that evidence, I will ask the Housing Commission, in view of those facts, immediately to go into the question to see whether we cannot raise the limit of R225 and the limit of R300. I think it was the hon. member for Boksburg who made the suggestion that we must make provision not for more than two children, but for three, four, five, six and seven children too. I am inclined to agree with him but I believe there are certain difficulties in that case. It is, however, just not true that people are being ordered to leave this accommodation. But I agree with the hon. member. I know of a few cases in Johannesburg, where the people refused increases in their salaries in order to be allowed to remain in their houses. I know of about eleven such cases. I must say that I do not find it so terrible. I think those people are very wise, because if they accept those increases they must leave their houses. So to remain there, they do not accept these increases. I want to show the hon. member how we administer this. These people must be given notice but I do not know of one single case where a person was kicked out of his house onto the street as a result of the fact that his salary rose too high. What happens is that he is given six months notice to find accommodation. In this he is assisted by my department. If he cannot do so within the six months, the period is extended by another six months. In every case which I investigated of people who received notice during the past 12 months to leave because their salaries rose too high, not one was placed on the street. They obtained other accommodation. This then is how we do it in practice.

*I come now to the hon. member for Tygervallei. I want to thank him for his words of praise towards me for allegedly being such an accessible Minister. But I know why he said that—he is coming to see me next week again with a whole lot of requests! He also raised the matter of the sub-economic limit of R100. Well, as I said, those people need not leave those houses. All they need do is to pay 30 cents for every additional rand until they reach the economic rate, and stay on there. But there are in addition the other schemes for those groups above R100. There are, for example, schemes which local authorities can tackle with loans at 3 per cent for the income group R100 to R130, 5 per cent for the income group R130 to R160, and 5 per cent for the income group above R160. We are therefore, with the assistance of local authorities, doing everything possible for these income groups.

The hon. member for Tygervallei had a lot to say about the special position of the Cape Peninsula. I want to concede that one of our gravest problems here in the Cape Peninsula is the problem of supplying our lower and middle income groups with housing. The other centre where we are also faced with this problem, is Durban, and I shall refer to that in a moment. I just want to inform the hon. member of what programmes we are engaged on at the moment, that is, programmes where tenders have already been accepted and the work has been commenced. Cape Town is engaged in the construction of 882 houses at a cost of R6¼ million; the divisional council is engaged in building 146 houses at a cost of approximately R700,000; Milnerton is engaged in the construction of 219 houses at a cost of R1¼ million. The hon. member for Maitland will therefore get his houses. He need not pester me so much anymore. Actually, he has not pestered me much up to now, but it seems to me as if he would very much like to. Now he is, however, going to have an opportunity to do so. In Goodwood 260 residential units are being built at a cost of R1,353,000: in Parow 18 houses at a cost of R190,000. Therefore, in the Cape Peninsula at the moment, slightly less than R10 million is being spent on the construction of houses for Whites. The programme for the ensuing three years is as follows: Cape Town R3,800,000; Divisional Council. R1¼ million: Milnerton, R1,400,000; Goodwood, R1,900,000; Parow, R432,000; and Bellville, R1,833,000.

What is the total number of dwellings involved?

Unfortunately I do not have the figure at the moment. This includes economic as well as sub-economic houses. If the hon. member is interested in this, however, I shall make the figures available. In any case, there are schemes at present in progress which cost almost R10 million, and R11 million for the next three years. This will go a good long way towards solving the problem we have here in the Peninsula. But as I said at the start, I do not want to dispute with the hon. member the fact that the position here in the Cape Peninsula is a difficult one.

He broached another very important matter here. He requested that it be made possible for industrialists to build houses for their Coloured labourers in Coloured areas. As far as this matter is concerned, we come up against a problem. According to the Group Areas Act, no private body may purchase land in a Coloured group area. If we were to allow that, we would be letting ourselves in for unprecedented problems. The hon. member is aware of this scheme in terms of which they must return it after 40 years to the local authority concerned. I admit that there is no encouragement in this for these people. Two months ago I was approached by the Tailors’ Provident Fund, 80 per cent of the members of which are Coloureds, in regard to a possible channel of investment for their money. This fund is predominantly controlled by Whites. This fund invested R300,000 in a block of luxury flats such as the Bordeaux flats. Now they want to know whether they cannot, instead of investing that money in luxury housing, invest it in housing for the Coloureds working in factories. There we came up against the same problem in regard to the Group Areas Act. On the advice of the Secretary for Community Development I then recommended to them that they establish a utility company with a majority of Coloured directors. That company can then purchase land in Coloured areas. The Minister of Labour insists that funds such as these should be under sound control. They then went to the Minister of Labour to hear whether they would be able to establish such a utility company. The Ministers informs me that it is virtually one hundred per cent certain that they will be able to do so. I understand that this fund has more than R3 million which it will in future be able to invest in housing schemes for the Coloureds working there. I see no reason why the same cannot be done by industrialists that want to make provision for housing for their Coloured workers. I can therefore inform the hon. member that we are solving this problem. I regard it as being of the utmost importance.

†Let me now come to the hon. member for Houghton. She raised with me. firstly, the question of Coloured housing in Ceres. In this connection I want to thank her for her very kind words and for handing me a bouquet in the Cane Times of this morning. I want to beg her now to stop trying to ruin my political career!

I thought I made up for it to some extent earlier this afternoon.

Yes, you did and I thank you for it. In regard to housing for Coloureds in Ceres, the position is that in Rooikamp they are now busy building 76 houses plus 24 in the farming areas around. We have already spent R150,000 while R200,000 is still to be spent. In area K we bought land to the value of R90,000 while services to the value of R15,500 have been installed. Furthermore, we are building houses there at the moment to the value of R66,000. The first 50 of these houses will be delivered by the 29th of this month. That will allow us to stop all tent living in that area.

The hon. member also asked me about the possibility of the deproclamation of this Rooikop area. It is not my work to proclaim or to deproclaim; it is the work of the hon. the Minister of Planning. He was with me when we visited Ceres on Monday morning and he may have been the fairy godmother and not me. He looks more like a fairy godmother than I do. He has given me the assurance that he has no plan whatsoever to deproclaim that area. In fact, I think we are working more in the direction of proclaiming again that little holiday area, that picnic spot, but I do not want to interfere with my hon. colleague. The hon. member also raised the matter in regard to the blankets. I know nothing about that and cannot give her any more information.

*I just want to say something about the entire question of the disaster area. I honestly want to say that you would not have believed that such a disaster could have taken place without loss of human life if you had not seen it for yourself. Houses and hotels collapsed, but, thank goodness, there was no loss of human life. The total disaster damage is estimated at R20 million. The Government’s contribution is all the actual damage caused, plus 30 per cent, to make provision for the higher building costs we have to-day. The buildings are valuated as they were built; now they have collapsed, and we are trying to restore the people to the same positions, by means of the valuation of their houses plus 30 per cent, because building costs to-day are so much higher.

Are building costs 30 per cent more to-day?

We estimate that building costs have increased, since the time those houses were valued, by approximately 30 per cent. The Government’s contribution will therefore be approximately R11 million. This does not of course include those people who were covered by insurance. The Provincial Administration’s contribution will be between R1 million and R2 million. White dwellings supplied to date number 820 at R2.7 million, and the total number of Coloured dwellings which have been programmed, come to plus minus 900, but unfortunately I cannot furnish the figure of what it will cost. We are rapidly remedying the situation.

In this connection I should like on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government to convey our sincere gratitude to Dr. Reinach and his disaster committee. Those people left their own professions and concentrated solely on restoring order to the position there as rapidly as possible. I want to convey to Dr. Reinach and his committee, as well as to Mr. Fouché, the chairman of the interdepartmental committee, who initiated all the work there, as well as my local officials of Community Development here in Cape Town, who kept a continual watch on the matter, both my sincere thanks and that of the Government.

We experienced this disaster in Ceres, and we experienced the disaster in Port Elizabeth, and now in East London as well, which fortunately does not appear to have been a major one. Several years ago we had the tornado disaster at Roodepoort, and the hon. member for Heidelberg made a very interesting suggestion here. He suggested that the Minister of Finance should consider whether he should add ½ per cent to income-tax as an insurance policy against any possible disasters which could strike us. Every time such a disaster strikes us, we are at our wits end; we do not know where the money is to come from; we have to appoint special committees, etc. This leads to delays. I want to inform the hon. member for Heidelberg that I will study his proposal very thoroughly and raise it with the Minister of Finance, and then let him know what the result is. I think it was a very original and a very brilliant suggestion he made.

As regards the comments by the hon. member for Langlaagte in regard to ½ per cent levy for building research, to which I referred at the Johannesburg building exhibition, I want to inform him that our Building Research Institute, and other bodies, have already done a great deal in the direction of building research. It is as a result of the work done by the Building Research Institute that we have been able to reduce the costs of Bantu housing in South Africa from almost R1,100 per house to between R500 and R600 —those were the costs when I was still there —for precisely the same house, because other methods are being applied. This is exclusively owing to the research of the Research Institute. We are continually engaged in new schemes.

Next week, for example, I am going to Nigel where the Brick Association has decided on a new scheme of building houses with bricks. This will be in competition with prefabricated construction which we of course regard with much sympathy. But prefabricated construction is now competing with the brick industry. The brick industry has now devised a new method for building houses. They preconstruct the walls in their factory; they then transport the walls to the building site where they are then erected. They are going to erect a house in Nigel next Thursday. They will begin at 7 o’clock in the morning, and by lunch time the house will have been completed. They maintain that it will be a house of 1,600 square feet, and that it will cost less than R6,000. I told Mr. Hochstader that if he could succeed in doing this, I would personally build him a liquid monument. I am looking forward to this with great interest. In addition I just want to say to the hon. member for Tygervallei that they are employing a new American method here. They came to discuss the matter with me. Our housing people, our planning people and our building experts were very pleased with their methods. The hon. member for Tygervallei informs me that they have now built a house here, and that it was subjected to a 15-hour weather test by the C.S.I.R. A few faults were found, but the house was found to be reasonably satisfactory. They are at present erecting a new one which they hope will be completely satisfactory. It will then be possible to erect a house of between 1,000 and 1,200 square feet for less than R4 per square foot; in other words, it will cost about R4,000. I want to inform the hon. member for Tygervallei that if they succeed in doing that then I shall build another monument like the one I mentioned a moment ago!

The hon. members for Hercules and Pretoria (Central) referred to the frozen area in Pretoria. I must honestly say that I deeply regret our not being able to obtain the co-operation of the City Council, but our invitation to them to appoint a representative to that State Committee, which is going to tackle urban renewal there, remains. They are welcome to appoint a representative to that State Committee. I am quite convinced that the fact that there is no co-operation is most certainly not my fault. I have informed the two hon. members who are interested in the report of the sociologists that the worst and the most difficult slum conditions were busy developing there. We were simply unable to allow matters to continue like that. I do not care how unpopular I now am with them; we simply had to intervene there. I want to predict that the result there will be precisely the same as we had in Stellenbosch.

Last year I was abused and berated here because I had intervened in Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Green Point made a terrific attack on me for having found it possible to quarrel with a National Party city council such as Stellenbosch. I did in fact quarrel with them, but what was the result? There are no longer 500 squatters in Cloetesdal, but there are 300 houses standing in Cloetesdal. I told Mr. J. C. de Wet that they can come along and fetch the houses whenever they want to and that they can administer them just as they want to.

I think I have replied to most of the questions put by the hon. member for Boksburg, in regard to the income groups for example. I have just received a note stating that I must not forget Fanie Potgieter, because he is so severe on me at the congresses. Unfortunately I skipped over two pages of notes I got from my Department, and that is why I accidentally omitted to mention him. The reply is that taxes on houses are levied by local authorities. The person to whom be should make representations is therefore the Administrator and not I. I can do absolutely nothing about it.

As far as the income limits are concerned, I can inform the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) that I have dealt fully with the difficulty which arose in this regard and how this continual revision is going to be done. I think he will have to be satisfied with that. I just want to tell him that I think that the schemes we have operating in Port Elizabeth at present are going to give that area a completely different appearance to the one it presented before, although I do not think that it has been too bad up to now. I think that I will hear an exhalted hymn of praise from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) at the next National Party congress.

The hon. member for Boksburg raised one point here, and I am afraid that I cannot agree with him in that connection. He said that township developers should make land available to local authorities at cost price. I do not know whether we can interfere with private initiative to that extent, but these matters are dealt with in the recommendations of the Niemand Commission. Those recommendations are at present being studied by a Cabinet Committee and will soon be submitted to the full Cabinet. I went into the problems to which he referred, i.e. those people who buy on hire purchase and who want to occupy the houses but who cannot evict the occupants. There are many practical difficulties in this regard, but I am still not certain whether the hon. member for Boksburg has a good point in this connection, and I shall have further research done in this connection. With this, I am almost done. At least, I am not done in, but I have almost finished replying to the questions.

I just want to say something about Coloured housing. I agree with the hon. member for Houghton that Coloured housing here in the Western Cape is a very serious problem. It is being aggravated by this unprecedented influx of Coloureds from other areas to the Peninsula, which is taking place for some reason or other. Consequently local authorities are being saddled with more squatters’ camps than they had before. However, we are doing something about this matter, and I just want to furnish the hon. member for Houghton with the following figures. I want her to take note of them. I have taken only the figures of the three local authorities, Cape Town, Paarl and Stellenbosch, as an example, in other words, only this complex which one could describe as the Greater Peninsula. During the past three years Cape Town has built 11,137 Coloured houses, the Paarl 745 and Stellenbosch 20. At present there are in Cape Town, 8,118, in the Paarl 1,335 and in Stellenbosch 488 Coloured houses which are in the process of being completed. The programme for the next three years, for which we are now calling for tenders, is as follows: Cape Town, 12,300; Paarl, 1,300 and Stellenbosch, 5,400. What this amounts to is that in the next three year programme, i.e. the present programme together with the next three year programme, in the local authority areas of Cape Town, Paarl and Stellenbosch, 41,000 houses for Coloureds have been built and will be built. This means that over a period of six or seven years we will make provision for additional Coloured housing for almost a quarter million Coloureds. I do not think that anyone could, under such circumstances, say that we are not tackling this matter as rapidly and as assiduously as we possibly can.

I want to conclude by referring to our problem of resettlement in South Africa. I now want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that I do not share her views. I want to say the same to the hon. member for Green Point. When one has separate group areas, one must be willing to move people from one area to another. If this is not done, separate group areas are not possible. The hon. member for Green Point states that they want to amend the Group Areas Act. I should like to know from the hon. member in what respect they want to amend this Act. I want to state to-day with the utmost conviction that in spite of the propaganda Which is being made to the effect that Coloureds are being driven from houses into the veld and that Indians are being driven from their houses and business undertakings into the veld, this is the most arrant nonsense. It is also being said that Indians are being forced to close down their business undertakings and open up again 50 miles away. This is the greatest foolishness in the world. If such things were to happen, I maintain that they are disgraceful, and it is the duty of the members concerned to bring it to my attention.

We have already made great progress with the resettlement of Coloureds and Indians. The number of Coloured families in the Cape Peninsula that have been resettled, exceeds 15,000. A further 10,000 families have still to be resettled. In other words, we have come almost two-thirds of the way. All this work has been done during the past eight years. It is of no avail hon. members saying that we have already been in power for 22 years. In previous years we simply did not have the money or the time to spend on this matter of resettlement. These figures which I am now mentioning indicate only what has been done during the past eight years. In Port Elizabeth 3,339 Coloured families have already been resettled and 3,031 families still have to be resettled. In Durban 1,913 Coloured families have already been resettled, and 965 families still have to be resettled.

As far as Indians are concerned, I can say that in Durban 13,733 families have already been resettled, and that 7,288 families still have to be resettled. In the Johannesburg municipal area 2,500 Indian families have already been resettled, and 1,500 families still have to be resettled.

I want to say here to-day that each one of those families have been moved to better accommodation. They have been moved from shanties to better accommodation. I want to conclude by saying that the Government is in earnest about our housing programme, and that our Government regards it as one of the most urgent problems in our country. Personally I am satisfied that we have at present done as much as was humanly possible. I do not have the slightest doubt when I say that what the National Party Government is doing for housing for all its population groups, compares with the best in the world, if it is not the best.

Mr. Chairman, the discussion on this Vote presents some difficulty which arises from what has been termed the new deal within the Department of Public Works which came into operation during 1967-’68. According to this new deal the Department of Public Works assumed the responsibility for the determination of the accommodation requirements for all the Departments of State, the determination of the priorities in which this accommodation was required, and the provision and assignment of accommodation for the various Departments, assumed control over the efficient and optimum use of accommodation, and finally assumed the responsibility for the maintenance of accommodation assigned to user Departments. The result is that when we now discuss this Vote, we have before the Committee, in addition to the administrative aspect, namely the Revenue Vote, some 44 pages of Estimates under the Loan Account, covering a total estimated expenditure of nearly R331 million and proposals in regard to the construction of various buildings for various State Departments which do, I think, affect the constituency of every member in this House. Obviously we cannot take the time to discuss the matter of constituency requirements. It seems to me that some consideration must be given by the hon. the Minister to devising other means for representations to be made by members to the Minister and his Department about matters concerning their constituencies. We wonder whether the time has not arrived under this new deal to deal with public works by way of a standing select committee or something of that nature, where such matters can be discussed during the course of the session. I raise this matter because it is quite impossible, and the time is not available in the total time which is allocated to the Budget debate, to adequately deal with 44 pages of Capital Estimates.

Sir, I will confine myself to one or two matters which are of more general nature in regard to the administration of the Department. Unfortunately, we meet to-day with a report which is somewhat out of date. It is the report for the 31st March, 1968. One feels that the position might not be correctly reflected. I might say that one appreciates the fuller nature of the last report which has been placed before members and tabled in this House. But when one looks at the report, one is concerned throughout about the seriousness of the staff position of the Department of Public Works. One finds that, as against authorized establishment, repeatedly throughout this report, whether it concerns architects, engineers or quantity surveyors, there are indications of grave staff shortages. The shortages in 1968 are dealt with and one finds that, although a recruiting campaign had taken place, paragraph 22 of the report reads as follows—

In other words, in spite of all the endeavours to recruit, there has been no success. In fact, the evidence which appears in the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts indicates that the position has even deteriorated beyond what it was in 1968. One finds for instance, that in the professional division of 45 authorized architects posts, 26 were filled and 19 vacant as at March, 1969. As regards quantity surveyors, there were 36 posts, of which 19 were filled and 17 vacant. Of the 57 authorized posts for engineers, 30 were filled and 27 were vacant. That is a serious situation. What has happened is that the hon. the Minister and his Department have been driven to the private sector, to employ and utilize the services of private architects, private quantity surveyors, and so on. But I am concerned about one aspect of the report by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, namely that the use of the private sector, of private architects and engineers, is, in fact, not assisting the Minister, I believe, to the fullest extent. The reason given by the report from his Department is that the time of his permanent professional staff was largely taken up by checking the work done by private consultants. As more work was given out on contract, so the burden on his officers increased. That seems to be a duplication. From my own very limited experience of dealing with buildings in the Provincial Administration, I appreciate that there must be a certain measure of supervision, but I do hope that the Department is working towards entrusting private architects and engineers with the full job of designing and completing buildings, so that they will not have to have their work supervised. This causes a duplication of professional time. I believe too that this causes a delay and delays cause additional costs in construction. That is what is happening when such work is undertaken by private commissioned architects, because their work is checked by departmental architects. I should like to know what the Minister’s views are in this regard and whether he sees any possibility of the improvement of the staff position.

Another matter I should like to raise is the extent to which accommodation is being rented. In reply to a question which I placed on the Question Paper, the hon. the Minister gave figures regarding rentals in various areas. I must say that generally, taking those figures into account, the rental per square foot appears to be quite reasonable in relation to the normal rates in the cities concerned.

While the present contracts last, yes.

I do not want to mention particular buildings, but I have visited certain of them in Pretoria, and one thing which worries me about this rented accommodation is whether the private entrepreneur who has a building erected on the basis that it is going to be let to the State, actually produces a building of a type Which is adequate for the housing of the staff of the State Departments which use that accommodation. I believe that in the case of too many of these buildings the bulk of the building itself is too large in relation to the site. The result is that one finds large numbers of offices on the inside of a building. These offices have no natural light and no natural air. They rely entirely on ventilation. We know that it becomes necessary at times to live by air-conditioning and artificial light, but I do believe that it must be avoided as far as possible in Government offices and that the staff employed by the State should have congenial conditions of working, with natural light and natural air as far as possible.

What about the Houses of Parliament?

I did say that sometimes one is subjected to these conditions, but they should be avoided as far as possible. I have no fault to find with the new designs of buildings built by the Public Works Department to house Government officials, but in the case of some of the buildings which are leased in Pretoria, there is too big a coverage of the site area, with the result that a considerable part of the interior of the buildings is not adequately lit by natural light and not adequately ventilated by natural means. They are then dependent on air-conditioning. I believe that this is a matter which needs the attention of the hon. the Minister.

There are other matters which one could raise, but I do not want to go into them in detail because, as I have said, the magnitude of the Loan Vote is such that one would be here for days discussing the various items. I do, however, want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider establishing machinery whereby members of this House would have an opportunity of discussing problems with him instead of approaching him singly on an ad hoc basis. As I have indicated, there are numbers of queries relating to individual loan items which I could raise, but I do not propose raising them this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the last point made by the hon. member, which he also raised initially, namely that a select committee should be appointed to deal with the Department of Public Works, I must say that it is a very interesting proposal indeed. When one takes into account the Budget of the Department as far as the spending on buildings and the renting of other buildings is concerned, one wonders whether there is not a great need for such a select committee.

Your capital is R330 million.

Yes, that is so. On the face of it I personally cannot find very much fault with the hon. member’s proposal. I will tell the hon. member what I will do. I will discuss it with Mr. Schoeman, the Leader of the House. If it finds any favourable reaction, we will of course contact the Opposition again, because this is obviously one of those things that must be agreed upon. You cannot do it one-sidedly. The annual report was a bit late, but the present report, that is the 1969 report, is in the hands of the printers. If the hon. member should want a manuscript copy of the report, we will let him have one. I am told by my officials that the report will be tabled next week.

As far as the staff position in the Department of Public Works is concerned, I am afraid we are in exactly the same position as all other Departments, especially when it comes to technical and professional people. The Department of Agriculture is looking for engineers and others. We are looking for architects and quantity surveyors. It is not easy. The result is that we have to go to the private sector. But now you find the following most difficult position. You give to the private sector a contract of R18 million, R20 million, or R30 million because you do not have the staff. As soon as they have that contract, they come and take away more of your staff to complete that particular contract. There is not the slightest doubt that we are faced with a difficult position. We already had the Mönnig Commission. This commission’s report was considered very carefully by the Government. They have gone into this question and great improvements have been made. It is, however, quite clear to me that we will have to look at this problem much more closely in future to see how we could improve the staff position in Public Works and other Departments requiring technical and professional people.

There is one thing the hon. member raised with which I cannot agree, namely the question of supervising the private contractors that we are putting on these jobs.

Architects.

Architects and builders.

Builders is a different matter.

Yes, but even architects.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to explain to the hon. the Minister …

The hon. member cannot give an explanation at this stage. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

We must supervise these people. The checking of sketch plans is absolutely essential to ensure the economics of the project and also to ensure that the requirements have been provided. This is quite obvious. We must check on these people. I am not so certain that private building is so much more effective and cheaper than building being done by the Government and the Department of Public Works. I have had experience in regard to a particular firm. Perhaps I should not mention the firm’s name. This concerns a case where the Government wanted to rent a flat for one of its Ministers. That flat was promised to us at the beginning of this year. We have not got it yet. I believe we can only get it at the beginning of next year if we are lucky. They are therefore a year behind schedule. We are not a year behind schedule at Jan Smuts Airport. We are behind as far as the Indian University in Natal is concerned. That is, however, not our fault. That is due to the difficult position we have in the building trade.

The hon. member referred to the question of office accommodation which we rent from private people. In some places accommodation is very satisfactory. In other places, however, they are not so satisfactory. It is a fact that we are paying in Pretoria, I think, just over R2 million per year in rent. I agree with the hon. member that at the moment the average rent is very reasonable. The only reason for that is that most of those contracts are fairly old. As these contracts expire I am afraid the rent will go up. Here in Cape Town we pay as much as R½ million per year in rent for housing civil servants. Lately we have heard criticism about the large buildings which we are erecting—for instance, the 30-storey building for the Department of the Interior in Pretoria. However, I am afraid we shall have to go on erecting such buildings as fast as we possibly can. We are already paying more than R3 million per annum in rent while our accommodation position is not good at all. This position does not only apply to the Government, but also to many private concerns.

As a point of interest, I may just mention to the hon. member that the Parliamentary complex, right up to the presidency and to where the old Bordeaux Hotel was, is now being considered by the Government. I have a model in my office and I must say it is most impressive. What the Cabinet is going to do about it, I do not know yet; we shall have to wait and see.

It is not secret, is it?

No, it is not on the secret list. I should like hon. members to come and have a look. It is a 15-year project. The model I have gives a good impression of what this area may look like in 15 years time.

Will there be enough parking?

The hon. member is now raising a very interesting point. There will be ample parking. However, there will be no single parking bay on the surface. Right throughout the whole complex you will see no car being parked because there will be ample parking for Ministers, for Deputy Ministers and for hon. members who behave themselves.

What does Pretoria say about that?

Whether Parliament is to be moved to Pretoria? Well, they can ask for that. In any case, it will not happen in my time. It is something about which my children will have to worry. I shall certainly not trouble myself about it.

I agree with the hon. member that it is virtually impossible for the enormous expenditure dealt with by my Department to be discussed properly in a Committee Stage such as this. I shall consult with the hon. the Leader of the House in order to see whether we cannot devise another system by means of which we can keep the Opposition informed of matters. This is, after all, not a political matter. It simply concerns proper administration. I shall therefore give further attention to this. There is nothing further for me to say at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour. First of all, we on this side of the House should like to extend our congratulations to the Minister who is handling this portfolio now for the first time as Minister. We wish him success. We are certain that he will not go the same way as his predecessor.

There is considerable concern in certain sectors of our economy at the moment over possible adverse effects on our economy flowing from the possible entry of Britain into the Common Market. This is the second time we are facing up to this problem. We had to do so in 1961 when Britain made an abortive attempt to enter that market. Things have changed considerably since then. Britain has in the meantime devalued and there are certain political overtones to-day which were not there in 1961. The consensus of opinion today is that Great Britain is likely to enter the Common Market within the next two to four years. Thereafter there will be, we understand, an adjustment period for anything from two to five years, during which Britain’s present tariff arrangements will slowly disappear until eventually she accepts the tariffs of the Common Market. Obviously we in South Africa are going to be affected in some sectors by the loss of the preferential tariffs which we presently enjoy on certain of our exports to Britain, and not only to Britain, but also to all the E.F.T.A. countries which are expected, when Britain joins the Common Market, also to apply to be admitted—countries like Austria, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and others. This then is what we will be faced with. From what we read, it appears that Britain will negotiate not only on her own behalf but also for the Commonwealth countries. How do we stand in this regard? Although we are not a member of the Commonwealth we still operate under tariffs which were established when we were a member. Therefore, will Britain negotiate on our behalf as well or will we have to do our own negotiation? We know that on some of our exports—particularly on such things as fruit, wines, canned goods and certain manufactured goods—we are likely to run into a certain amount of trouble with our exports. On the other hand, I do not think we must lose sight of the fact that in respect of a lot of our exports we deal on a world commodity price basis—such as coal, asbestos and base minerals. These items are not likely to be affected. If one looks at the overall picture it is my belief that we must not be too despondent about this issue of Britain and the Common Market. Unfortunately there is a feeling of despondency about. What we have to do is to face up to the problem squarely, and vigorously to take full advantage of all the factors which can ensure our export position in the world. The first thing I think we have to do is to remove all the impediments to our export potential. Of these there are unfortunately many. Firstly, we have to ensure that our infrastructure is as perfect as we can make it. In this I include our transport system, and the capacity of our ports to handle our exports. These must be brought to maximum efficiency. One is somewhat disturbed when looking at the Railway capital appropriation that this is not increasing at a tempo which we believe is necessary to ensure efficient Railways and Harbours administration. Our Railways and Harbours are a vital part of our export potential. We have to sweep away this attitude of Laissez-faire which has crept into the administration of our Railways and Harbours. Secondly, we have to avoid the high capital output ratios through decentralization programmes that are not economically based and which raise unit costs to potential exporters. Thirdly, and perhaps the most important, if in terms of Government policy we have to live with labour restrictions, then I believe the Government has got to be prepared to relax these restrictions in regard to export intensive industries. The hon. the Minister of Finance this year in his Budget speech made certain provisions to endeavour to help our exports, but he did not deal with the crux of the problem, labour. If we have to export, then at least in regard to export intensive industries there has got to be labour relaxation, because our goal in this issue has got to be productivity and more productivity. So our first priority is to base ourselves for export, particularly for manufactured goods, so that we can meet not only the challenge of Britain’s possible entry into the Common Market but also the challenge in regard to our balance of payments position.

The second thing I believe we have to do is to go out and sell. It is no good producing unless you sell. Now five years ago, for example, I made certain suggestions in this House to the then hon. Minister of Economic Affairs that we should strengthen our commercial representation abroad, and I took one or two cases over a period of a couple of years. I took South America, for example, and asked why we had no commercial representation in South America. The hon. the Minister replied to me that we produced very similar types of goods to those produced by South America; their currency was a fluctuating one and was not sound and he did not think it was a good idea. Of course after this period of five years we now have representation in the Argentine, Brazil and Peru and no doubt our representation will increase.

But we must not wait for these things. We always seem to lag behind. Let us try to be a little in front. Let us be a year or two ahead instead of five years behind. I also raised the question of our commercial representation in Sweden. There our commercial representative not only has to look after Sweden, but he has to look after Norway, Denmark and Finland, and that is a physical impossibility. I have been in these countries and I tried to find somebody who could tell me something about the question of exporting to South Africa, but all I was told was that there was an honorary consul and of course he was usually not there. Greece is another case. Our representative in Greece has to look after our representation in Iran also and Iran, as I have told this House before, is a country which has no ties economically and will buy in the best market. We have to be represented there.

Then there is a third factor. I think we have to look at the Communist countries. We in South Africa know that Communist goods are entering South Africa. You can buy Hungarian jam and Czechoslovakian pencils, and we actually used them in the House for many years. You can also buy Chinese linen. I know it may be said that it comes from Hong Kong, but when one goes to Hong Kong one finds that it is simply an outlet in that area for the Communist countries. In the same way that they are trading with us we have to trade with them. Germany trades with Russia and has a pact with Russia now. She wants to extend her trade relations, and we have got to do the same. The old adage that business and commerce know no barriers is, I think, applicable. If there are Communist countries that want to buy from us, I think we have to sell to them and I am sure we will be able to do things in that connection.

Now let us take a look at the E.E.C. itself. Here the position is not very clear. The European Economic Community is a European organization. It is a political-economic entity from which we are excluded, and in fact to which we are irrelevant. We cannot become a member of the E.E.C. It has been suggested in some quarters that we might become an associate member. I personally, without full knowledge of all the implications, am not at all sure that becoming an associate member will be in our interest because our own tariffs will then have to be lowered thus allowing a flow of goods from the E.E.C. into South Africa, i.e. from developed countries to a developing country.

We are not an undeveloped country and so we cannot expect the special treatment that the E.E.C. has given to undeveloped countries. We are somewhere between the sophisticated industrially developed countries of the West and the emerging countries of the Middle East and Africa. But at the same time we have a vast population that is undeveloped—our Bantu peoples—and I believe that this can be a bargaining factor when we have to bargain with the E.E.C. I also believe that it is for this middle position that we must bargain—somewhere between the developed countries and the under-developed countries—and I believe that our powers of bargaining are very substantial. I think sometimes we forget that we have these bargaining powers. You see. Sir, although we are not a fully developed country we are a fast developing country and the world wants to trade with us. We have stable government in South Africa; we have a currency that is strong in South Africa, and South Africa has always paid its way. It is one of the few countries in the world that has always paid for what it has bought, and we will go on in exactly the same manner; we will always pay.

Sir, the interesting thing is that over the past two or three years we have had innumerable missions from abroad coming to South Africa and there are still others coming. Among those we have had—the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—one from France; we have certainly had one from Holland and we have had a number of local missions from parts of Britain. These are all members of the Common Market or will be when Britain is admitted. They do not come here because they like our looks; they come here because they want our business and this is something that we must not lose sight of. We are a country that has something to offer in the way of trade, and this is a bargaining counter.

Sir, another interesting factor is that more and more of the great banks of the Western world are establishing themselves in South Africa. Only two or three weeks ago one of the great Swiss banks established itself in South Africa, and some months ago we had a consortium of German banks establishing themselves in South Africa. Sir, oversea capital wants to come and is coming to South Africa, and this, I believe, is a second bargaining factor. I hope that the hon. the Minister will not under-estimate what used to be called the power of the pound or the power of the dollar or the power of the mark. The banking fraternity of the world plays a vital part and a very important part in influencing governments. I do not believe that we are using the influences which we can bring to bear through our own banking sector and their association with banking sectors in other parts of the world. Sir, if you talk to people overseas you will find that in many cases the bankers are the people who really crack the whip. I believe that what we have to do is to use the great overseas banks and the giant overseas industrial organizations which are associated with us in South Africa and which wield enormous influence, to assist us in our case when we have to start our bargaining or, if we have already started, when we have to continue our bargaining with the countries of the Common Market. We have to enlist them as our allies.

Sir, I think it is fair to say that the Department of Commerce and the Department of Industries, concerned as they are with matters which are vital to them, do not have contacts in many of the areas that I have described, but the private sector has. I believe that we have to muster all the influence and all the power of the private sector in South Africa to help the State sector. I believe that the two together will achieve something whereas each alone might well fail.

Sir, there has been another of these clouds of secrecy over the whole question of import control, G.A.T.T. import tariffs and the Common Market. Last year, somewhat out of the blue, the then Minister advised that the Government had started to dismantle import control, and the reason given was that because of our balance of payments position we were being forced by G.A.T.T. to dismantle import control. Now, a rumour has been doing the *rounds and perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us whether there is any truth in this rumour. This is that the dismantling of our import control was part of the deal that was negotiated in regard to the gold settlement. I have no idea whether there is any truth in this statement or not. I would very much like to know what the position is. What we do find strange about the whole situation is that first we started to dismantle G.A.T.T. and then under a veil of secrecy we sent a mission scurrying all over Europe to try and arrange tariff deals. It is something like closing the stable door after the horse had left. I would imagine that the right way to deal with this problem was to do your deals with the G.A.T.T. countries, and then to dismantle import control. In this way you would not be left vulnerable having already dismantled import control. We know that all the G.A.T.T. tariffs are bound and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what his objectives are in these negotiations which are taking place abroad on his behalf. What are the short-term objectives of these people we have sent abroad, over 18 months or two years, and what are the long-term implications we are trying to deal with?

There is another aspect which I want to mention. There is another area where we may have some bargaining power. I want to pose the question whether our gold reserves and our gold production could not be used as a means to build up a loose association with the E.E.C. which is considering a common monetary union by 1978-’80. Britain is still the financial heart of the world. One of the problems which will come forward when England negotiates with the Common Market is to accommodate her financially. I believe that the capital and money markets of the City of London may well loom large in her negotiations with the Common Market. At present Britain still controls financially 25 oer cent of all international trade transactions and the whole of the Common Market only handles ten per cent.

Strangely enough, London is the centre of file Euro-dollar and the Euro-bond market. She handles more than the Continent and she handles more than the City of New York. She has done issues of Euro-bonds up to 100 million dollars as far as I can trace, the highest one West Germany has ever had amounts to 35 million dollars. With the economic and the monetary union coming closer, speculative attacks may well be expected on the currencies of the E.E.C. members and on sterling. This could have cumulative repercussions on all currencies. If there are speculative attacks on a member during the transitionary period from their own currencies to a common currency, which is expected between the years 1978 and 1980, could South Africa not offer to place her gold holdings and newly-mined gold at the disposal of the E.E.C. members and Britain on a lease-lend basis? It is something which we have done before. We lent England ½80 million. Could we not lend them our gold on a lease-lend basis in order to help them beat off any attacks on their currencies? In this way gold and not S.D.R.’s will be more effective in beating off speculative attacks and will render the E.E.C. more independent of the American dollar. Could gold not contribute more to the orderly management of the international monetary system in this way—something which we in South Africa want in particular? Repayments of these lease-lend funds could be made in either gold or currencies as and when we need gold or currency. In that way we will have another outlet for our gold. The S.D.R.’s cannot be used to ward off speculative attacks on currencies, because only the central banks hold them. The inter-bank swop arrangements might not be sufficient to stem any real wave of speculative attacks upon the currencies of the Six countries and sterling. Therefore, should such an unforeseen speculative attack take place the very fact that South Africa’s gold could be used on such a serious occasion would probably defer further attacks. The gold that we might lend on a lease-lend basis would not flow into the normal monetary system and we would therefore not have any objection from America. It would merely be used to help to defend currencies if they are being attacked and to protect the orderly management of the system during the period of transition from six or seven currencies to a common currency. I do not know if there is any merit in this thinking, but it is something I would like the hon. the Minister to go into. I do say this, that in any bargain with the E.E.C. all sectors of South Africa must take part, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Industry, the banks, financial institutions, the Reserve Bank and all our overseas connections. In this way I believe we shall not be as vulnerable as many people seem to believe.

There is one other matter I would like to raise, namely the saga of Saldanha Bay. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to tell us the story. What do we know at the moment? We know that the Japanese want to, or wanted to, buy large quantities of iron ore from the South African mining industry as a whole. If one reads Press reports, it appears that Iscor has decided that she is the iron ore industry. We know that harbour facilities had to be provided and a railway line built. So far so good. Then the Government announced that a new port would be built at Saldanha Bay and also a new railway line to Sishen. The financing to assist the new harbour and railway line was, we understood, to be part of the contract with the overseas people concerned. The Iscor General Manager then took himself off to Japan in a hurry and we waited for him to return with the contract, but somewhat like Chamberlain with his umbrella, he came back empty-handed. The next step in the saga was the statement in the House by the hon. the Minister of Transport when he stood up and told us that he did not believe in the port at Saldanha or the railway line running from Sishen to Saldanha and that he preferred Port Elizabeth. Here we have a Minister of State saying that he prefers Port Elizabeth and we have Iscor saying that they prefer Saldanha. Who is running the country? The Government or Iscor? It is becoming a very interesting question, namely who is running the country? The I.D.C. or the Government. I hope we will hear a little more about that later. As far as we can gather from the reports and survey we were able to have a look at, Saldanha can only handle ore carriers up to tonnages of 150,000 whereas St. Croux can handle carriers of up to 350,000. We know that the Japanese are not interested in ships with tonnages of 150,000. They are as antiquated as some sections of our harbours. The Japanese are thinking in terms of carriers of 500,000 tons and 600,000 tons. Nothing seems to tie up. This is a wonderful opportunity for the hon. the Minister, in his first address to this House as the new Minister of Economic Affairs, to tell us the story. To help him I am going to put to him the questions that were put to Iscor in the Financial Mail of 14th August and to which no replies have been received. They were—

1. (1) Was the Algoa Bay alternative fully investigated by Iscor and the S.A.R.? If so, what is the view of the S.A.R. and why was that route eventually discarded?
2. (2) On what ore price, or carrier size, and export volume was the Saldanha feasibility study based?
3. (3) Did Iscor first consult with the Japanese about their preference for harbour, and about proposed contract conditions to make sure its proposals were realistic? If so, how did the current muddle arise? If not, why not?
4. (4) Will the capacity of the Sishen-Port Elizabeth railway line be expanded in spite of a go-ahead for Saldanha?
5. (5) What ore export contract are in the pipeline and on what terms?
6. (6) When was the Cabinet decision taken for the conditional go-ahead with Saldanha? Was it already taken by January, 1970, yet not disclosed?
7. (7) Why did Iscor refuse to negotiate jointly with the private South African ore producers as the Japanese Letter of Intent proposed?

If we get the answer to these questions, I think we will know a lot more about the saga of Saldanha Bay. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can tell us something of the private interests that have now gone to Japan to try and negotiate for a contract presumably outside Iscor. If he can tell us something about that, the country will at least begin to know what is going on in this somewhat long and muddled story.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by just extending my cordial thanks to the hon. member for Parktown for his welcome to me in this new Department which I have to take care of. I am very much aware of the fact that South Africa’s future is to a very large extent dependent on our economic success. In fact, I do not think that any two of us in this House will differ on that point. This being so, I approach the work entrusted to me with the greatest sense of responsibility which I have, and I hope and trust that in this way and during the period I shall be in charge of this Department, I shall be able to render a major contribution to the future success of our country.

The hon. member asked a few questions and dealt with matters which I should like to discuss. As he had done on more than one occasion in the past, the hon. member gave me an indication beforehand as to what he was going to discuss. I think this is a good thing. It enables us to promote the conducting of debates in this House, especially in view of the fact that one appreciates that a department, such as the Department of Economic Affairs, covers such a wide range of matters that one does not, as it were, have any idea beforehand as to what matters are going to be raised during the discussion of the Revenue Vote.

But before I come to that, you will permit me, Sir, to deal briefly with our economic administration as I see it. During the debate the censure debate already I discussed this briefly and also dealt with certain matters. I said at the time that I should like to mention four criteria in terms of which one could judge whether or not the economic administration of a country was of a superior standard. The four criteria I mentioned, were the following: Firstly, is the general growth in keeping with the potential and resources of the country? In the course of the censure debate I dealt fully with this matter, and I do not wish to discuss it any further. I just want to summarize by saying that over the past number of years we have experienced a growth rate with which I think any country in the world will not only be satisfied, but also very pleased. The second question is whether the opportunities for employment have been extended so as to provide the growing population with a good livelihood. Thirdly, has the Government provided for the economic viability of the country? Fourthly, has the Government accomplished its task, without jeopardizing the external balance or the internal stability of the economy? Now I want to proceed to dealing briefly, as a background to this discussion, with the second, third and fourth points which I have made here.

As regards the question of whether the opportunities for employment have been extended, I think that we have, so to speak, given a reply to that already. Where there is a growth rate such as the one we have had over the past number of years, i.e. one of 6 per cent, it goes without saying that this question has already been answered in part, since, from the nature of the case, the growth we have had was bound to create opportunities for employment. Recently there has been a huge increase in production, the result being that opportunities for employment have also increased over the years. In the manufacturing industry over the past ten years, i.e. the ten years up to 1969, opportunities for employment showed an increase of no less than 66 per cent. In the construction industry, in which there is in South Africa at the moment, in comparison with all the other industries, a particularly great deal of activity, opportunities for employment showed an increase of 140 per cent over the past ten years. According to the statistics there is no unemployment in South Africa. In fact, unemployment has reached such a low that it is, as it where, creating problems for us at the moment. I think that this is very important in the economy of a country, for if unemployment does exist, we really have problems.

In recent times we have also had a much better geographic distribution of economic activities than we had before. I think that, in particular, this Government is responsible for that. This is common knowledge to all of this. We think of places such as Pietermaritzburg and East London. These are cities which, as it were, were stagmant for years. The development of border areas has over the past number of years given tremendous impetus to these cities in the sphere of industrial expansion. This is also the result of the Government’s policy of decentralization. We also think of growth points such as Hammersdale, Rosslyn, Phalaborwa and Brits. These are areas which, as it were, developed out of the barren veld and which have in a few years’ time grown into The activity which is to be observed there to-day. We also think of places such as Rustenburg, Pietersburg, Newcastle and Ladismith, places which have benefited to a large extent as a result of the policy of the Government as regards decentralization and border area development. The Government is constantly more deeply by means of its decentralization policy, not only to our borders, but, indeed, also into the areas which have been marked out as homelands for the Bantu.

The third point with which I want to deal, is the question of whether the Government has provided for economic viability. In replying to this question, I want to refer first to the success of the ties which we have in recent times forged with our neighbouring states, such as Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, countries with which we have entered into a reciprocal trade agreement and with which we are cooperating very successfully in the economic sphere. Even with our friends north of the Limpopo the co-operation is better than it has ever been before. Even as regards the Portuguese provinces, there is no lack of good co-operation in the economic sphere. Here one thinks pre-eminently of a project such as the Cabora Bassa, in respect of which there is such successful co-operation.

The second leg of this matter is whether the Government has provided for economic viability. I want to discuss this in conjunction with the question in regard to the construction of strategic factories for the processing of strategic supplies, and also the provision of strategic supplies which we ourselves may not have at our disposal. In that respect one may as well mention a few. Actually, I need not trouble the House with that matter, for hon. members are aware of the shortage we experienced in making ourselves self-supporting in respect of strategic supplies. I am thinking of the establishment of Sasol and the Government refinery, which will go into production by the end of this year already. We are thinking of the synthetic rubber factory which can make South Africa self-supporting. In the sphere of transport we are thinking of the fact that we are already in a position at present to meet our own needs in respect of motor vehicles which have a high percentage of South African content, and also the needs in respect of our own Railways. We are also thinking of the way in which our steel industry has developed over the past years. At the moment we do have, to a certain extent, a shortage of steel in South Africa, and we are obliged to import steel. But for all practical purposes we are self-supporting, and we are geared for a programme, which will over the next few years cost millions of rands, even hundreds of millions of rands, for making us even more self-supporting in this sphere as will in fact be the case, too. We are thinking of the other essential metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, stainless steel and tinplate. Tinplate is used for the canning of several products. In those spheres we are self-supporting. We know that before long we shall manufacture our own aluminium in South Africa. In regard to fertilizer, in respect of which we were so vulnerable in the past, we are quite self-supporting at the moment. Except for potassium, we are meeting all the needs for fertilizer which South Africa may conceivably require. Even grain bags, which we had to import previously, are being provided by us and manufactured in South Africa. As regards the essential needs of textiles, we are also providing the necessary. We are also thinking of the electronics industry, in which a great deal of progress has beep made over the past years. Articles such as ball-bearings and electric-bulbs, which one regards as being rather ordinary, are highly strategic. These articles are also being manufactured in South Africa right now. As regards the sphere of defence, I cannot elaborate. This is a matter which should not be discussed here. We all know to what great extent we are meeting our needs in respect of defence requirements.

The third leg under this heading is this: Reasonable supplies for essential goods. We are aware of the fact that we in South Africa are very richly endowed with raw materials. However, there are certain raw materials which we do not have. In the circumstances in which we live and which prevail in the world to-day, it is essential for us to ensure that we have all the raw materials. For that reason the Government has, as we all know, adopted a course in terms of which these strategic raw materials are accumulated in the event of an emergency arising in South Africa. This is a matter in regard to which one prefers not to furnish particulars. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that in this respect, too, we are equipped for every possible contingency.

The fourth leg under the heading I am discussing at the moment, is that in order to provide South Africa with security and greater viability, the Government has in recent years made a point of it that South Africa must obtain an interest in those establishments in South Africa which are being controlled by foreign companies. In that respect, too, we have achieved a great deal of success. This has been achieved without coercion. Virtually all overseas companies which are establishing themselves in South Africa to-day, undertake this on a basis of partnership with South Africa, as we should like it to be. Overseas companies which have subsidiaries in South Africa, which previously belonged or still belong to those companies on a 100 per cent basis, have gradually declared themselves to be willing to grant also to South Africa an interest in such companies. I think it is very important in the case of industries in South Africa handling the processing of articles of strategic value, that it should be ensured that such processing is not done by companies controlled exclusively by other countries.

The fourth test to which I referred, was whether the external and internal balance of the economy had been preserved. Over the past ten years imports have doubled themselves. In spite of that our foreign reserves stand at R800 million plus at the moment. This represents the imports of approximately three to four months. This is a sphere in which we are still in a tremendously strong and sound position at the moment. To a large extent this is attributable to the fact that in recent times, as was almost regularly the case in the past, we have had a strong inflow of capital into South Africa. Over the years from 1965 to 1969 there was an inflow of no less than R1,115 million in foreign capital into South Africa. I think we can take this as a criterion of the confidence which the world has in South Africa and its economy. This is something which was to a large extent supported by the hon. member for Parktown.

As far as the internal stability is concerned, one pays special attention to the price index. Over the past decade which ended in 1969 the consumer price index rose, on the average, at a rate of 2.5 per cent a year. Admittedly, recently a more rapid or faster increase in prices took place, i.e., during the year which ended in April, 1970. During this period it increased at an annual rate of 3.9 per cent. In my opinion this is largely attributable to the single purchase tax which was introduced in South Africa and which did not exist previously. But what is important in this regard, is the fact that the real per capita national income in South Africa increased more rapidly than did the consumer index— in other words, we have a rising standard of living throughout South Africa. The ideal of any civilized people in the world is a continually rising standard of living, and it is worth mentioning that as far as South Africa is concerned. there is a sustained rise in our standard of living. This is something for which we are, of course, very grateful.

These are a few thoughts on the past. Now I also want to express a few thoughts on the present and on the future. Industrial production has in recent times increased by gigantic leaps. As recently as in the past year it showed an increase of 10 per cent. A matter which causes us some concern and which appears to us to be less favourable, is the slower inflow of fixed investments. I think we can say that the overall picture is not an unfavourable one. Total fixed investments in South Africa are still showing an upward trend at present. However, in the manufacturing industry we did not have the same increase we had in the past. The absolute figure in regard to capital expenditure is not a low one. On the contrary; it is still high. In 1969 it was twice as high as it was in 1962. But in spite of that we are concerned about the fact that the capital inevstment in the manufacturing industry is not as high as it ought to be in the case of a dynamically growing economy such as that of South Africa. We can speculate on why this should be the case. Recently there has been a great deal of speculation on. for instance, labour and on uncertainties which are supposed to prevail here and there.

One thing is true, i.e. that the investment boom of 1965, 1966 and 1967 had an effect on the downward trend we are experiencing at the moment. In those years investments were doubled, and therefore we shall have to accept that we created a surplus capacity during those years, and for that reason one must expect our economy to grow into it. Anyone of us—irrespective of whether we are dealing with a wine cellar or with a factory—* knows that if we expand, we do not so gradually—i.e. from year to year and from week to week—but that we make provision for several years ahead—in other words, we expand in spurts. If one’s capacity becomes too big, it means that one’s business will have to grow into that capacity first. The same applies to the high capital expenditure which took place in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967— it is likely that this contributed to our having at the moment a slight downward trend in this sphere. We are also aware that the labour situation is creating a certain amount of uncertainty for industries. We are aware that in actual fact over-employment prevails in South Africa—in other words, there is in fact rivalry for labour and there is a premium on the services of a competent person.

As this is the position, we must expect to experience bottlenecks in our economy. We know there are more opportunities for employment in South Africa than we can fill. We appreciate, of course, that if we want to maintain the growth which we want to and can maintain, we shall always be saddled with this sort of problem.

There is another matter which I should like to emphasize and to which I want to ask hon. members to give their attention. It is a matter which is very near to my heart, and something about which I feel very strongly. I am referring to the tendency which prevails in South Africa, and which is evident from day to day, for our people to consume more than they produce. In fact, this state of affairs is getting even worse from year to year. Our people are inclined to be dissatisfied with the means at their disposal. Of course, it is understandable that any person in the world is desirous of being able to live better and to acquire those things which he would like to have. But then we should also remember that it is essential for us to increase production accordingly. The position at present is that salaries are never high enough; the higher the salary, the greater the purchasing power, and the greater the purchasing power, the greater the consumption—without this being attended by increased production.

Mr. Chairman, this will still lead to our downfall. We cannot go on consuming more than we are producing. We can save the situation by one thing only—by working harder and thus yielding a joint production which will exceed the joint volume of consumption. And it is pre-eminently the white people that will have to maintain this position. It is pre-eminently the white people who, by working harder, are to keep our economy sound in this respect. All of us—every employer and every employee—should make it our task to utilize, to the best advantage of our employer, the time for which we are being paid. During their working hours our people should exert their energies for the promotion of their employers’ interests, and should not occupy their time with all sorts of unproductive things. We should rather use our leisure time for doing those things. I know that skilled labour is scarce in South Africa, and it will remain scarce as long as our economy is growing. I want to express a few thoughts on how we can meet this problem. In the first instance, there are accelerated training and a greater measure of automation and mechanization. I know this thought has been expressed on many occasions, but the fact nevertheless remains that these are the means which will contribute to increased production. As I said, if we continue to consume more than we produce, we shall go backwards.

I also feel that we have at our disposal extensive resources of unskilled labour, and a great deal has already been said and will still be said about the more effective utilization of unskilled labour. In the interests of industries in general we shall probably have to pay attention to our utilizing the skilled labour exclusively for those jobs in which the need for skilled labour is greatest, and we shall probably have to make it a prerequisite that our skilled labour is in fact utilized in the right places, and that having done this, one should see what the best advantage is which can be derived from one’s unskilled labour.

A great deal has been said here about labour and the way it should be utilized, and especially the utilization of Bantu labour. I know that we adopt the attitude that we do not want to neglect our industries and that we want them to make progress. We know that our economic future will to a large extent depend on our industrial progress, but it would also be dangerous and probably fatal for us if we were to allow an uncontrolled influx of non-white labour into the cities. It is probably common cause that we should not have an uncontrolled influx. I think it is this very policy which the Minister of Finance had in mind, and on which we are to hold discussions, i.e. to restrict to the minimum this controlled influx into the cities which we want to apply, but to create at the same time opportunities for industrialists by locating them as far as possible at places where they can make the greatest use of non-white labour, away from the metropolitan areas.

I just want to emphasize that we are by no means thinking of stagnating the industries situated in the urban areas. There are certain industries and businesses which must remain in the urban areas. They should not only remain there, but there should not be any stagnation either, and it must be ensured that they, too, will be in a position to contribute their share to the economy of South Africa.

Now I should like to deal briefly with the few matters which were raised by the hon. member. He referred, inter alia, to the G.A.T.T., and he also referred to the E.E.C. These are matters in regard to which we have specific problems at present. I agree with him, and right at this stage I want to tell him I also agree that there is no need for us to feel pessimistic about our problems. Nor is there any need for us to feel pessimistic in respect of the proposed negotiations in regard to the E.E.C. and also in respect of the G.A.T.T. But it is an indisputable fact that we do have certain problems in respect of these two bodies. I should like to start with the G.A.T.T., because it is the older organization and the E.E.C. was only established later on, and then I should like to link it up later on with the E.E.C.

Let us look at the background for a moment. I think it is essential for us to look at the background to the G.A.T.T., and how South Africa links up with it. This organization gained its final shape in 1947. There were protracted negotiations which started with the Atlantic Charter as far back as 1942, but I think it gained its final shape in Geneva in 1947, where South Africa was very well represented. I understand that there were two Ministers for a very large part of that year, and 23 others participated in the discussions in regard to the G.A.T.T. in Geneva in 1947. Now I should like us to look for a moment at the circumstances which prevailed at that time. Let me start first by saying that owing to circumstances South Africa agreed at the time to goods being imported duty-free or at a nominal duty. This applies, in particular, to manufactured goods, and in fact this is to a large extent still the position in respect of manufactured goods to-day. In 1947, despite the war, despite the amount of stimulation which there was for home manufacture during the war, South Africa was, pre-eminently, still an agricultural country, and, in fact, to a large extent our exports still comprised primary products and raw materials, whereas on the other hand we imported manufactured goods which we wanted and had to have and which we did not manufacture in the country.

In looking back at the tariffs which obtained in 1947, we find that the tariffs in respect of manufactured goods imported into South Africa, were tariffs laid down towards the end of the twenties. They were particularly low. They were not only low, but in looking back to-day, one realizes that at that stage those tariffs were laid down more specifically for the purpose of obtaining revenue than for that of affording protection. As a result the tariffs were negligible, small and low. The circumstances were such that at that time, in 1947, South Africa was quite agreeable to accepting low tariffs on imported manufactured goods in exchange for low tariffs on or free exports of our goods to other countries. But unfortunately the position was that the goods which we exported freely or at low tariffs, were agricultural products, primary products and raw materials.

In the meantime South Africa developed and became an industrial country. As it developed and became an industrial country, it increasingly felt the adverse effect of the fact that there were low tariffs on imported manufactured goods. In view of the fact that under the G.A.T.T. agreement one has to have a quid pro quo in the negotiations—in other words, when one asks a country for something, one has to give him something in exchange— we unfortunately find ourselves in the position to-day that we should like to have certain things but do not have something to give in return, whereas under the G.A.T.T. agreement one must have something if one expects something from another country. Hon. members will also recall that in 1947 the G.A.T.T. agreement was concluded in the spirit that a maximum contribution should be made to the emancipation of world trade. It was also in that spirit that South Africa approached the G.A.T.T. agreement and, probably, entered into agreements and tariff commitments, as a result of which we are experiencing problems to-day.

Would you want to change them?

The hon. member wants to know whether I would want to change them. Of course, I would want to change them if it were possible to do so, but I think the hon. member should rather not ask such a question; it merely goes to show how little he knows about the matter.

He should rather confine himself to wool.

Sir, in 1949, after the National Party had come into power, we experienced balance of trade problems in South Africa. The G.A.T.T. agreement contains a provision to the effect that there should be no quantitative control—in other words, that import control may not be introduced by members of the G.A.T.T. This can only be done under section 12 of the G.A.T.T. agreement. At that stage, in 1949, South Africa, with the support of the International Monetary Fund, claimed the benefit of section 12 of the G.A.T.T., and South Africa started applying import control. If one looks at the history, it is most interesting to note that, because, under section 12, we restricted our imports of consumer goods to a certain extent, an immediate stimulation of home manufacture took place in South Africa. This had a further consequence, i.e. that capital goods were imported to much an extent that these, in turn, created balance of trade problems for us. Be that as it may, I do not want to elaborate on this matter. The fact of the matter is that we have over the years continued to apply import control. It has now been applied in South Africa tor 21 years. Now I want to tell hon. members why it has been useful to us. It has been useful to us for several purposes, but it has at the same time afforded a measure of casual protection to South African manufacturers—in other words, to goods manufactured in South Africa with the aid of the Board of Trade and Industries after negotiations in regard to the various goods. In this way this import control has over the years proved to be very useful to South Africa and it has made a major contribution to enabling our industries in South Africa to develop on their own.

This matter was raised before, but last year the I.M.F. did not see its way clear to supporting South Africa as long as it applied import control in terms of section 12 of the G.A.T.T. agreement. Therefore, last year we were unfortunately denied the right to apply import control in South Africa. South Africa made it very clear at the time that, for the time being, it would not abolish import control until such time as it had obtained other means which would afford it protection under the G.A.T.T. agreement. This is the position in which we find ourselves to-day. Negotiations are to take place now, and we are already conducting negotiations in regard to our various tariffs. We are to try, through tariff determination, to obtain more effective protection than we have had up to now. It is our import control which has afforded us this protection so far, but from now on we shall try to obtain it through tariff determination. To start with, the hon. member for Parktown will know that this is an extremely protracted and drawn-out process. It is a tremendously complicated process. He asked me questions about the possibility of our succeeding, but in that regard I want to tell him that it is not possible for me to furnish the answers as easily as that. From the mature of the case it is not possible to do so. These are complicated questions to answer, and at the time, when we were deprived of the protection of section 12 of the G.A.T.T. agreement, we gave the industrialists certain assurances. To-day I want to repeat the assurance to the industrialists that the protection which we promised at the time, will remain in force until such time as other means can be found for meeting more effectively the position and the problems with which we have to contend in respect of the G.A.T.T. agreement. With the other means at our disposal we shall try to strengthen our position under the G.A.T.T., but I just want to tell the hon. members that we can expect difficulties to arise along this way.

The European Economic Community to which the hon. member referred, is another problem with which South Africa has to contend at the moment. In fact, we faced the dangers of this problem on previous occasions already, i.e. when England applied for membership of the European Economic Community. This is an organization which was only established as recently as 1957 by the six countries which are still members of this organization at present, i.e. Italy, France, West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemborg. Those countries have full membership of the E.E.C. Over and above these members there are associated members as well. These associated members do not accept the full commitments of membership under the E.E.C., but enjoy most of the benefits connected with it. This large number of associated members came about largely as a result of the former territories of France, the Netherlands and Belgium in Africa. I think that, in view of further developments which may take place, we may expect this large number of associated members with the E.E.C. still to be increased to a large extent.

At the moment there are four applications for membership. The hon. member for Parktown referred to various countries which might probably become members of the E.E.C., but at the moment there are four applications for membership, i.e., Britain, Norway, Denmark and the Irish Republic. I agree with the hon. member that, although on former occasions when England applied for membership she did not succeed, the atmosphere in Europe has largely Changed at present. I think we should prepare ourselves for expecting these applications to meet with success. If these applications are successful, we should also expect even more applications to be made by, for instance, countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal and Austria.

The expansion of the E.E.C., largely through the participation in it by England, but also by that of other countries, involves tremendous implications for countries such as South Africa. I want hon. members to appreciate that this organization will form a trade bloc of tremendous dimensions, a trade bloc in which trade benefits will be granted on a preferential basis, by the one member country towards the others, with discrimination towards foreigners. The question that may be asked, is how it can be that these countries are members of the E.E.C., whilst they are also members of the G.A.T.T. at the same time. The G.A.T.T. provides that there may be no deviation from tariffs. There is a provision to the effect that the G.A.T.T. is not applicable in a case wihere a customs union is formed. For instance, there is a customs union between South Africa, Lesotho and Botswana. In our relations with each other, we are not affected by the provisions of the G.A.T.T. It was under the protection of this provision that the E.E.C. was established. The question which is still hanging in the air, is whether the establishment of the E.E.C., as it exists to-day and as it is expanding, comes within the scope of this customs union principle, which was created by the G.A.T.T. I do not know whether this question will ever be thrashed out either.

As I said, we are greatly concerned in England’s entry into the E.E.C. For instance, I am thinking merely of the fruit of the Western Province and my own constituency, i.e. grapes, apples and pears and also citrus products exported from here to England. These products-enter England duty-free, and in some cases the tariffs are so low that they are virtually nominal. One appreciates, therefore, what South Africa’s problems may be in the event of England’s becoming a member of the E.E.C. If England becomes a member of the E.E.C., all import tariffs in respect of the E.E.C. countries will be evened up, and if another arrangement is not made, we shall, of course, no longer enjoy the tariff benefits of free imports into England as we have done up to the present moment.

Then the hon. member asked me a question about South Africa’s position. He said that we were no longer a member of the Commonwealth to-day, and he assumed that England would make a plea for the members of the Commonwealth. Then he wanted to know where we stood in regard to this matter. It is true that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth, but in spite of that we are nevertheless enjoying Commonwealth benefits under the Ottawa Agreement, i.e. concerning reciprocal tariff preferences which are being maintained between us and Britain. Whereas the hon. gentleman said he presumed that England would take up the cudgels for the Commonwealth countries, I must tell him that I have many doubts about the matter. At the moment there are definitely no indications as yet. It is likely that he will also have taken cognisance of the fact that Mr. McEwen, the Australian Minister of Economics, recently paid a visit to England. In the Australian newspapers they wrote that he had returned with a crestfallen air. I know that there is talk that in the case of New Zealand it will probably be considered necessary to act differently. But it seems to me as though the general opinion is that Commonwealth membership is not going to make much difference and that, just like us, they will simply have to negotiate, bargain and devise plans in order that they may, in the best way, get out of the position which may be created in the event of England’s becoming a member of the E.E.C.

As I have said, it is inevitable that when England becomes a member, we shall lose quite a number of benefits which we have at present. At least, it rather seems that way. There will probably be difficult adjustments for our exporters to these countries. These problems are being aggravated further in that the E.E.C. member countries and associated members will obtain duty-free access to the British market. In other words, the E.E.C. member countries and associated member countries will obtain duty-free access to the British market, to which we have up to now obtained favourable access, whilst our exports will then, if nothing is done, be subject to customs duties. I want to say that some of the E.E.C. countries have already become strong rivals of South Africa on the British market, and that from the nature of the case their position will, of course, be strengthened by these circumstances. On two occasions in the past important delegates have been sent on behalf of South Africa to conduct negotiations in regard to the possible entry of England into the European Common Market. This took place in 1962 and again in 1967. Ever since that time exhaustive discussions have taken place from time to time in regard to the problems which will be experienced by South Africa. Furthermore, on 20th November, 1962, a special meeting of representatives from Britain and the Six countries was held in Brussels, where South Africa also made its representations.

What the hon. member said is correct, i.e. that the entry of England into the British Common Market will not simply take place all of a sudden. We expect the negotiations to go on for quite some time and a period of adjustment to be allowed so that the various countries will be able to adjust themselves to these particular circumstances. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that in respect of this matter, we shall have problems in the future. One does not wish to dictate to industrialists what they are to do, but we know that the deciduous fruit industry will not be the only industry to be affected. The deciduous fruit industry will probably be affected first, followed by the canning industry, which will probably be hit even harder. But generally speaking I think that the industrialists will have to identify the problems. Then they will have to try to adjust themselves to the circumstances as they arise.

I agree with the hon. member that we should not be so pessimistic about this matter. With the establishment of this large common market, a bloc will be formed in which tremendous purchasing power will develop. I think we should start concentrating right now on equipping ourselves better in order to be more competitive, with a view to the huge demand market which will develop as a result of the creation of this large organization. As I have said, the creation of the E.E.C. will, if it expands as expected, bring about a vast community with enormous purchasing power. I make bold to say that gradually the E.E.C. will not only exericse economic influences on the world outside. I think we should expect this large E.E.C. which is being envisaged, to exercise more than merely economic influences on the world outside. If England enters the Common Market, the exporters of South Africa will be presented with major challenges. If at this early stage I may mention only two aspects, we shall probably have to concentrate on bringing about a greater volume of sales in E.E.C. countries. This is also what the hon. member has to a certain extent suggested. We shall probably have to give thought to the rationalization of specific export industries by way of mergers in order that goods may be sold in that extensive market on a more competitive basis. Furthermore, I want to say here that the Government is leaving no stone unturned in order to do everything in its power to protect South Africa’s interests, with a view to the threatening dangers in the event of England’s joining the Common Market.

The hon. member also raised the question of our export promotion. I should like to say something about this matter, and then proceed to make a statement in this regard to the Committee. In the course of a speech which I made in Johannesburg last week, I discussed our balance of trade position. I said that we could not go on importing as much and exporting as little as we were doing at present. We should take either of two steps. We should either curtail our imports, or expand our exports. The second one is the obvious step for us. On that occasion I said that, if we did not do so, we would find at some stage or another that our balance of trade position would be jeopardized. Sir, I am not keen to refer to a newspaper again, but I must say that at that stage the Sunday Times tried to play off Dr. Diederichs and myself against each other. The Sunday Times reported that Dr. Diederichs had said last year that our position in respect of our foreign reserves was a sound one, and that I subsequently warned the people that our balance of trade position would be jeopardized if we did not export more. Now they are saying that Dr. Diederichs and I are expressing conflicting views. Sir, this is the greatest nonsense out. Our position is still a sound one, but we cannot sit idle until such time as it will have deteriorated, only to start talking then. We should start talking when the tendencies are evident that our position in respect of our balance of trade is going to deteriorate. That is the matter which I discussed at the time. I want to repeat it to-day in all earnestness. I think we should make an effective attempt at promoting our exports. It is for that very reason that in his Budget proposals for this year Dr. Diederichs suggested means for promoting the exports. We know that at present agricultural products still render the most important contribution to our exports. However, these are precarious owing to drought conditions, and so forth. The mining industry renders a large contribution and will probably render a larger contribution to our exports in the future. However, major capital expenditure is involved in this matter. Accordingly this has a bearing on the long term. On the short term we should concentrate on manufactured goods. It is in this respect that we have not yet obtained the necessary support which we should like to have.

I have already said that the Government is doing a great deal in an attempt to promote exports. In my Department of Commerce there is an export promotion section, which provides all sorts of auxiliary services to industrialists in order to help them to stimulate their exports. These auxiliary services are connected inter alia with market reports, technical advice and guidance, publicity abroad, advertisements in overseas newspapers and the provision of trade missions. I should like to say a few words about these matters later on. The hon. member said that we had to go abroad in order to make sales. There is an amount on the Estimates which makes provision for us to send out trade missions. While dealing with this point, I may just say in brief that this is an idea which we can discuss profitably. I fully agree with the hon. member. There is a difference of opinion as to what kind of trade mission is the most beneficial to a country. Should one send a small mission which takes the articles along to show them to a prospective buyer, and should such a mission insist on an order straight away? Or should it be a bigger mission on a higher level, where only the necessary contacts are being made? These two types of missions can possibly be combined. I think that we as the Government can profitably combine the Department with the private sector so that such a mission may bear the official stamp, but that the private sector should be brought in prominently in order that it may make the contacts for the sake of our export promotion.

Then the Government also has the export credit re-insurance scheme, which is rendering very valuable services to exporters in regard to political and commercial risks which may be involved in exports. This is also applicable to construction projects. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of the large extent to which construction projects are already being arried out by South Africa in other countries. There are special encouragements to exporters. Then there is the system of rebates on income tax which has been in existence all along, but these rebates were increased in the latest Budget proposals by Dr. Diederichs. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance announced that financial assistance would be granted to exporters in the financing of export business. This was done more specifically for the purpose of offering favourable terms of credit to buyers, something which is absolutely essential. This assistance is in the form of 25 per cent of the finance charges in respect of new or increased exports.

In this regard and for the sake of clarifying the matter to industrialists. I should like to make the following statement.

In a Press statement which I released on 27th August, 1970, I announced that the Department of Commerce, in consultation with other interested departments, the Reserve Bank and organized commerce and industry, would, as soon as possible, formulate a scheme which would be aimed at giving effect to the Government’s decision to compensate our manufacturers and exporters in part for the finance charges which they had to incur in respect of new or increased exports of manufactured goods. A scheme of this nature has now been drafted and approved by me. This scheme will come into force on 1st October, 1970, and will from time to time be adjusted to changed circumstances. Full details of this scheme will be published shortly in the Gazette for general information. On this occasion I should like to outline briefly to hon. members only the main features of this scheme. The scheme will make provision for the payment out of public funds to manufacturers and exporters of a rebate of 25 per cent of the finance charges, expressed in terms of the current bank overdraft rate, which they have to incur in respect of new or increased exports of manufactured goods. Because our exports of agricultural products, minerals and certain types of primary manufactured goods have already become firmly established in markets abroad, exporters of these products are not experiencing the same financing problems in respect of their exports as are being experienced in the case of exporters of bona fide manufactured goods. Therefore, exporters of the said types of products will, initially at least, not qualify for assistance under this scheme.

What is meant by manufactured goods, is goods of which at least 25 per cent of the production costs is made up of materials produced and labour performed in the Republic or South-West Africa, and of which the last manufacturing process was carried out in the Republic or South-West Africa.

Goods which have not undergone a recognized process of manufacture in the Republic or South-West Africa, will not be covered by the facilities of this scheme. For instance, the processes of packaging, mixing, crushing, blending and any other similar processes will not be regarded as bona fide manufacturing processes, unless the execution of any of the processes of this kind gives rise to a basic change in the form of the raw product to which such processes are applied.

As I have already said, the scheme will only be applicable to “new” or “increased” exports of manufactured goods. What is meant by “new exports”, is the exports of manufactured goods by industrialists or exporters who, for a period of three years prior to the year in respect of which rebates on the interest charges under the scheme are being claimed, did not export anything at all. What is meant by “increased exports”, is the increased values of exports of specific articles achieved in the year in respect of which the assistance of the scheme is required, as compared to the average annual values of the exports of the same articles achieved during the three immediately preceding years.

The payment of rebates on interest charges under this scheme will be based on the invoice values of the export transactions in respect of which these rebates are claimed, and exporters will have to submit audited statements and other documentary evidence in support of their claims for such rebates.

The scheme will be administered by the Secretary for Commerce, assisted by a committee on which the Department of Finance and the South African Reserve Bank will be represented.

I want to express the hope that this scheme of granting assistance will serve as a new incentive to our manufacturers and exporters to expand further their overseas sales of manufactured goods. It is essential that they undertake this task with a greater measure of perseverance and enthusiasm in order to reduce the increasing deficit on the trade balance.

So much for export promotion. Now I should like to mention another matter, i.e. the National Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council. I think all of us have heard of it. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) has exerted himself greatly for this purpose. I should like to announce that the Government has decided to approve the establishment of a National Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council and to lend financial support to this council. The consumers of South Africa are the only communal group which has up to now had to act in a largely unorganized manner and which has not had at its disposal a representative organization to look after its interests. Admittedly, there is a large variety of consumer’s, women’s and employers’ organizations in our country, but all of these organizations act in their own respective spheres, and over the past number of years they have increasingly come to realize that the interests of the consumers could be served more effectively through more co-ordinated action. Subsequent to a symposium on consumerism held in Pretoria earlier this year, the most important consumers’ organizations, such as the National Consumers’ Council, the Women’s Agricultural Union, the South African Federation of Women, the Housewives’ League, the S.A. Confederation of Labour, the Public Servants’ Association, the S.A. Nursing Association, the Automobile Association, etc., submitted to the Government definite proposals for the establishment of a National Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council.

In the main it is being envisaged that this body will serve as the mouthpiece and source of information in regard to all matters which are of common interest to the consumer. This body will, inter alia, serve as the consultation point which, through the authorities or commercial and industrial organizations, will obtain the views of consumers on matters affecting the interests of the consumer, whilst it will, by availing itself of existing media of information, spread information which is useful to consumers.

The Government has considered these proposals and arrived at the conclusion that the establishment of a National Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council will be in the interests of the consumer, as the largest single communal group. It has therefore decided to approve the establishment of such a council and to make a constribution, out of public funds, to the expenditure of the council.

After consultation with the consumers’ organizations, it was decided to establish a council, which will consist of a maximum of seven persons and which will be served by a small full-time staff. In respect of the current financial year R10,000 will be made available to this council, and R25,000 in respect of each of the following three financial years. Additional contributions to the council’s expenditure will be considered in the light of the results achieved by it in the implementation of its objectives during these initial years of its existence. The members of the council will be appointed by me from a panel of names which will be submitted to me by the consumers’ organizations. My Department of Commerce and the S.A. Bureau of Standards will also be represented on this council. So much for the consumers’ council.

Then I just want to say the following in regard to the inquiry that was instituted into the Companies Act. The main report of the commission of inquiry into the Companies Act has just been Tabled in both Houses of Parliament. In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding. I deem it expedient to explain to hon. members that with the submission of this main report, the commission of inquiry has not yet completed its task in full. The commission is still in the process of preparing a supplementary report on certain outstanding points of its inquiry, and also of drafting a Bill intended to replace the present Companies Act. There is every hope that the remainder of the commission’s activities will be completed early next year, so that I will then, in the course of the 1971 session of Parliament, be able to Table the commission’s supplementary report and its proposed Bill, both of which will form inherent parts of the main report. Subsequent to that the Government will consider the commission’s findings and recommendations as a whole, prior to taking a decision on the acceptance thereof, as well as on the submission of a Bill to Parliament for approval.

I think that, except for Saldanha, these are more or less all the matters which were raised by the hon. member and which I took the liberty to deal with. I should like to express a few thoughts on the Saldanha scheme and the questions which the hon. members asked in that connection. Let me start by saying that I am sorry that such articles are written in a publication such as this one. I think the hon. member will probably agree with me that the tenor of articles such as these, does nobody any good. I do not even want to read snatches taken from this article, but I do want to say this: I feel that a publication such as the Financial Mail can make a valuable contribution to the economy of the country if it would only try to be a little more objective, if it would only not be filled with hatred and politics in a desire to play its role as a publication which is a so-called financial publication.

Sir, allow me to deal with a few points which were raised by the hon. member. The first point he raised, was that there was ostensibly a difference of opinion in the Cabinet on Saldanha as against Port Elizabeth, and that the Minister of Transport ostensibly held a different view. What the Minister of Transport was supposed to have said, is quoted here; I think it is correct; it is likely that that was precisely what be said. I did not make sure whether it is correct, but I assume that it is. He was quoted as having said the following—

He did say so.

I want the hon. member for Parktown to note the words “as Minister of Transport”.

†As a matter of fact, Sir, I had discussions with the Minister of Transport this morning.

You mean as Leader of the House he would have supported it?

No, it is not a matter of supporting Saldanha or not. He was in favour of Saldanha when he had to choose between the two. But if the decision were left to him and if he as Minister of Transport had been requested to build a railway line, to man it, to provide the rolling stock and to convey the ore, then he would have said that he could not do it for a number of different considerations, one of them being capital. Although the hon. the Minister said “I as Minister of Transport would not have built it”, I can give you the assurance, Sir, that in the Cabinet—and there are other Cabinet Ministers present—we had to decide between Port Elizabeth and Saldanha Bay, and there was no doubt at all in the mind of the Minister of Transport as to which of the two we should decide upon. We then decided upon Saldanha Bay; he decided upon Saldanha Bay. The Minister of Transport explained the position to me again this morning. This is what he meant. If they had come to him and asked him as Minister of Transport to build a line and to build a harbour he would have said that he could not do it. but the Cabinet decided upon Saldanha. The position is quite simple. [Interjection.] If the hon. member does not want to believe me let him ask the Minister of Transport.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Minister of Transport has also suggested that the Railways will take over this line in the future?

No, I do not know of a suggestion of that kind. The understanding is that this line will be built; that the finance will be provided by Iscor. We have not decided whether the line will be built by contractors or not, but the finance for the line will be found by Iscor, not by the Railways. The financing of the rolling stock will be undertaken by Iscor, and once the finance has been provided and the line built, then the Railways will handle the administration of the line.

Order! I do not think that this railway line falls under the hon. the Minister’s Vote.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is what the hon. the Minister is telling us this, that if Iscor is foolish enough to do this …

No.

… that he does not mind?

That is what the hon. the Minister says.

There is no suggestion on the part of the Minister of Transport that it is a foolish thing to do. He says that he as Minister of Transport will not be able to find the finance. He will have to find the finance through Government channels. The hon. the Minister was there and we had to choose between Port Elizabeth and Saldanha Bay. We decided that of the two it should be Saldanha Bay. We laid down three conditions, two major conditions and one condition of lesser importance. The first condition was that there should be a viable contract with Japan. The second was that the finance should be found and a third, which is of lesser importance, was that the line should also be available for other products to be transported. Those were the three conditions. As I have already said, the first two conditions are of much more importance than the last one. Now, he asks me the following questions and I quote—

I suppose this question was put on the basis of the statement made by the Minister of Transport.

On the economic possibilities.

Both projects were investigated. My answer to the first question is unequivocally yes. Every detail was made available to the Cabinet and was discussed in great detail by the Cabinet. Iscor, who worked out the scheme of Saldanha as compared with Port Elizabeth, regarded Saldanha as the better one of the two under the circumstances. There is no question of it not being economical. It is worked on the basis that it will show a profit and that it will pay for itself through the iron ore scheme. The second question was and I quote—

I would like to tell the hon. member that, according to my information from Iscor, they thought in terms of 150,000 ton carriers. It has not been stated that Saldanha cannot take bigger ships; of course it can take bigger ships, but the harbour will naturally have to be improved.

Only at an enormous cost.

I think the hon. member will agree with me that it would be over-ambitious of Iscor or of any of us to suggest that we should start off with 200,000, 250,000 or 300,000 tonners. I know that there are bigger ships in the world to-day, but surely, to start with 150,000 tonners is already a big start for any scheme. According to the information at my disposal, the Saldanha Bay harbour can easily be improved to take up to 300,000 tonners. If that information is wrong, then I am also wrong. However, that is the information which was being put at my disposal.

It can only be done at an enormous cost.

Yes, it is an enormous cost, but this cost will be viable for a scheme of this kind. The next question was and I quote—

There is no muddle. I do not know where the muddle is. I would prefer it if the hon. member for Parktown raised questions which originate with him, rather than raising these silly questions which come from the Financial Mail. I think if he were to raise questions which come from him, we would have a much more sensible discussion on these matters.

It is a stupid fellow who wrote that article.

Yes, that is the trouble with these articles. There are irresponsible youngsters who know very little about these matters and for ulterior motives they write articles of this kind. First of all I say there is no muddle and secondly I want to say that Japan was very careful and diplomatic not to interfere with the decision of whether it should be Saldanha or Port Elizabeth. Does the hon. member suggest that it is Japan’s affair to decide as to whether it should be Saldanha or Port Elizabeth? Does the Financial Mail suggest that Japan should decide, by posing the question: Did Iscor first consult with the Japanese? Why should we have?

It might be cardinal to a contract.

I do not see why. We have to supply the iron ore. I might tell the hon. member that in spite of the fact that there were three Japanese missions at different times in South Africa—and I can tell him that every one of them favoured Saldanha to Port Elizabeth—they did not express their views openly and their views did not really make an impression on the decision as to whether it should be Saldanha or whether it should be Port Elizabeth. That is the position and I think it is the correct position. Japan should not be expected to have the final say here. Next he goes on to say—

That is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Transport. I understand that improvements will be made to that line, but to what extent, I cannot tell. I can only suppose that the improvements will be done as required from time to time. Then he goes on—

All contracts referred to here I suppose are others than those contracted with the Japanese. What is aimed at with this scheme is that a big contract should be entered into with the Japanese and smaller ones with European countries. In the meantime Iscor is busy procuring contracts from other countries in the world. Surely the hon. member does not expect me while they are busy with negotiations to make known what the extent of the negotiations is? What I did not tell the hon. member is the price. I would like to tell the hon. member that the price quoted by Iscor was $10.51. At the moment this price is regarded by the Japanese as being a little high and they are investigating possibilities to try to find wavs and means to bring down the price if possible by way of bigger carriers or by any other means they find possible. The next question is—

My answer is “no”. It was taken the week before this Parliamentary session started. I issued a statement on the 17th July. The decision was taken during that week. The next question is—

Here my information is that right from the beginning and throughout the negotiations Iscor made it known to the Japanese that when they undertake a scheme of this nature it must be a scheme of magnitude. Iscor said that they could not undertake contracts for the export of ore of less than 10 million tons per annum. What Iscor then anticipated was that with smaller contracts to European countries and Britain they could increase their exports to about 15 million tons and that of other private exporters with a few million tons so that the total exports through Saldanha may go up to 20 million tons per annum. As far as the consideration of Saldanha in preference to Port Elizabeth is concerned, I can tell the hon. member that there are numbers of reasons, but I do not want to go into them now unless he expects me to. All of these were very carefully considered by the Cabinet before they took a decision.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has replied in some length to the questions raised by the hon. member for Parktown. He replied to some of them but not to all. He has given us a lot of historical information which is known to us already, but I presume he wanted to place it on record. It was very interesting finding the Minister recommending that we should use more South African goods. I hope he will ask industry to keep a watch on the quality of the goods. I think it is very probable that in these days of cut prices and price as the only object, quality is not considered. While it is important to have qualified staff in the factories, What is equally important is to have qualified inspectors at the end of the line. We have seen in some cases cars thrown together, shoes that fall apart and even clothes that fall apart. Fortunately, this is not the rule, but the few cases that do occur, damage the industry as a whole. I suggest that when the Minister is dealing with industrialists he should give consideration to that matter and enjoin industrialists, not only to work harder, as he has done already in respect of South Africans in general, but also encourage them to pay more attention to quality. We find frequently that when the Government requires tenders for certain types of goods, various industrialists lodge complaints from time to time, saying that they tendered for certain types of goods and then when they find that the tender is settled, the supply of goods are inferior to the specifications. They did not discover it until too late. Industry as a whole suffers, because the complaints come through from the departments who receive the goods which are of inferior quality. I must stress the fact that the time is overdue when quality should be stressed.

I do not propose to deal with the question of the export of iron ore from either Saldanha or Port Elizabeth. What I would suggest to the Minister, is that he should contact our representative in Australia. I recommended to his predecessor that he should have an interview with the Minister of Industrial Development of Western Australia, who concluded a very beneficial contract for the Australian people with the Japanese. The Japanese are hard bargainers and they want a long term contract. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, are we not allowed to hear?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

They have a long term contract with Western Austrialia which satisfy the Japanese and also the Minister in Western Austrialia.

For several years we have suggested that the time has come for adequate consideration to be given to the Utility Corporations which come under the Minister’s Department. These utility corporations are not discussed in detail. We do not have the opportunity to discuss them. We only have a matter of 10 minutes or so during the discussion of the Minister’s Vote. I refer particularly to two utility corporations, namely the I.D.C. and Iscor. The I.D.C. was established in 1940. The then Minister, introducing the Bill, said that the Government was not going to be industrialists themselves, but that they were going to help private enterprise. The Government of that day stood by private enterprise. In recent years, the tendency has been for the I.D.C. to compete with private industry. Industrialists are getting concerned to-day. The Minister on the one hand wants further industrial development. Labour shortage is given as one of the reasons for lack of development. But I suggest, too, that one of the reasons why industrialists are tardy in investing is because they want to be certain that they are not going to have competition from the I.D.C. I suggest, Sir, that when we find the I.D.C. competing in the field of textiles, shoes and carpets with private industry, one is not surprised to find concern among industrialists, because they virtually feel that they are in competition with the Government. A lot has taken place since 1940. Yet the public can get no adequate explanation as they could from a company in the private sector. We as shareholders have no opportunity of discussing the ID.C. in detail. I want to refer particularly to the annual report of the I.D.C. which was given to us a few days ago. It states:

I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to Sentak. Recently there has been considerable comment in financial journals about Sentak. It appears that certain directors and executives took up options and presumably were greedy, in that, when the market went against them, they found themselves in difficulties. In order to get themselves out of these difficulties, they had to form a trust fund of R370,000. Eleven executives found themselves in difficulties and in order to get out of their difficulties, they started a special trust fund. The Press report states that the board considered every possible way of coming to the aid of the 11, and finally decided that a trust scheme was the only practical way. We should like to know whether the board’s decision to set up a trust fund was unanimous, and also whether the full board was present at the time the meeting took place. We should also like to know whether the Minister approves of the arrangement. The following are some of the questions to which we require answers: How many shares did each obtain, and at what price? Which of the directors have since left Sentak? At what date did the board decide to set up the trust fund to repurchase the shares? What was the date on which the repurchases were made? What is the name of the trust fund? Who administers the trust fund? Is the Minister satisfied that the Sentak action is legal, and is he satisfied that there was moral justification for the steps taken by the board? There are many other questions which could be asked, but I think the most important question is whether any assistance is to be given to minority investors, of whom there are many thousands. There are many thousands of investors in N.F.I., Who have been very seriously hit. Yet it appears that only the chosen 11 are to receive any assistance. In my opinion the authorities have a responsibility to the public, and steps should be taken to see that schemes such as these are prohibited in future.

A week or two ago the Financial Gazette and the Financial Mail issued a joint statement setting out their objections to the Sentak scheme. It reads as follows:

These are strong words, Sir. They are words used by two leading financial papers in this country. The statement continues:

Sentak falls under the control of the I.D.C., and the Minister is responsible for the I.D.C. The two weeklies, the only purely financial publications in South Africa, jointly urged that the Companies Act be amended to exclude such schemes as Sentak devised. The Gazette this week made the Sentak affair its main story on the front page, and presented its own editorial under the heading “A scheme wrong in principle”. It states:

This is an important statement from two of the leading financial papers. The I.D.C. is financed with money taken from the taxpayer in that it is financed by loan funds granted by this House. Part of the loan funds of this House are taken from the pockets of the taxpayers. I think the hon. the Minister owes the House an explanation indicating whether he is going to have a proper inquiry into this matter, with a view to ensuring that such practices do not continue. [Time expired.]

I think that all of us agree with the hon. member for Pinetown in connection with the Sentak matter. Few of us can justify it, and we hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will issue a statement about it. However, I do not think it justified that the hon. member for Pinetown should judge the entire I.D.C.’s interests acquired over the years. I think that the I.D.C. has shown itself to have played a very fine role in the development of the Republic of South Africa. But as far as this matter is concerned, I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will reply to him. He does not expect me to have to concern myself about that.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Parktown in wishing the Minister of Economic affairs every prosperity, and I also want to include the Deputy Minister in this. We particularly want to thank the Minister very warmly for the good report he submitted to us here. I think it is a brilliant report, and that it is once more a proof of the thorough planning extending over the entire Republic of South Africa. It also proves that the domestic growth in commerce and industry has been phenomenal over the past number of years. This internal industrial growth has brought the Republic of South Africa to within reach of the first 10 countries of the world. We are very proud of our domestic growth, but there are certain aspects that concern us. In 1960 the Republic of South Africa, in my opinion, was up against the same problems it is up against to-day. In 1960, after Sharpeville, there were countries boycotting us, and the Government then came to the fore with its tremendous industrial development. And now we are up against the same standpoint—and the hon. member for Parktown put it very well—if England becomes a member of E.E.C. markets and such-like. Our agriculture and gold mines were two commodities that earned us good foreign exchange in recent years. The hon. the Minister himself referred to the fact that with our lengthy droughts we find that we can no longer depend on agriculture. Gold is also in the process of becoming a vanishing asset. In 1962 the University of the Witwatersrand appointed a committee to investigate how long the mines would still be able to function on the Witwatersrand. The Government also gave a subsidy to this undertaking. The committee issued a report in which they gave attention to the years in which the 35 mines that are operative to-day will have been worked out. They mention that in the year 1982 there will be another 9 mines that have concluded their operative life-span in that year. We also heard the disturbing news that two of the mines which, according to them, should still be producing in 1982, i.e. S. A. Lands and Vlakfontein, are going to close shortly. S. A. Lands is going to close down at the end of this year, and Vlakfontein a short while afterwards. Since gold is one of the commodities that earned us foreign exchange, I want to ask the Minister this afternoon whether it is not possible to keep these mines going as long as possible, since assistance is being granted to the gold mining industry ito the tune of R14 million; these mines are only closing down because they have water problems and the State is already contributing to the maximum. We have a further report written by Dr. D. C. Krogh, in which he states—-

I want to ask that we keep this gold production going as long as possible, but then I want to go further and associate myself with the hon. member for Parktown. It is urgently necessary for the Republic of South Africa to do everything possible to promote its export trade. I am grateful to see that there is a South African company that has begun to create a foreign display window for South Africa in the British Isles. It is stated here that this company, which is going to open an office block in the heart of London, to serve as a display window for the Republic’s products, will display all the Republic’s commercial articles, and that this company still wants to go further an expand to Europe and even to America. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. If the Republic of South Africa wants to maintain its lead, it is imperative that everyone of us, whether it be the State, the industrialist or banking, should roll up his sleeves to help us to export. “Export or die” must be our slogan, and just as the industrialists, together with the Government, helped in the past to make us an industrial country, we must likewise try to export every possible product. But I want to say here this afternoon that among our industrialists there is a tendency to neglect general planning; they do not plan to export to the whole world. They only export their surplus. In cooperation with the State, I feel it is very important for us to look at the market in general over the entire world, to see where we can obtain markets, and if we can obtain that market, industry must be orientated in such a way that it can provide for domestic as well as foreign consumption, because it is wrong just to try to export the surplus. That is why I now want to congratulate the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, the Agricultural Society and the Minister, because I see that in 1972 they are going to hold a trade fair at Milner Park. This is a very praiseworthy deed and I want to ask the Minister to give every possible assistance. And let us not only set up such a display window or a trade fair in the Republic; I wonder whether the time has not come for us to hold trade fairs on the Continent of Europe, in England and wherever it is necessary, to help display our manufactured goods, because our future is going to depend upon whether we can promote an export market. If we cannot do so, then the future of the Republic is a very black one. Since we are engaged in industrial development in the border areas, I want to appeal to the Minister that he call upon the Minister of Transport to be more lenient as far as transport licences are concerned; this is necessary. Although hon. members on that side do not believe in industrial development in the border areas, I see a wonderful opportunity in these border industries to help us promote our export trade, so that we may also become a big country. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him but I want to finish the theme that I was discussing when my time expired. I was saying that a proper inquiry into this matter was necessary with a view to ensuring that these practices do not continue, and also to see whether some relief can be given to the many minority shareholders in NFI who suffered losses which have been met in the case of certain executives and directors while the ordinary shareholders have been left high and dry. Will the Minister consider amending the Companies Act to prevent shareholders’ funds being used to rescue option holders from the results of the exercise of their own judgment and to exclude schemes such as the Board of Sentak has devised, from the scope of section 86bis (2) (b). I ask the hon. the Minister to give that his consideration because I believe it is important.

I would also like to say at this stage that much of the work done by the IDC is constructive and useful. I am not criticizing the IDC as a whole. I am criticizing them in this particular transaction. I do suggest that some people have taken on more than they can manage and that the lure of empire-building has probably clouded their vision, with costly results to the public. I think this empire-building must be watched very carefully. It is very fine to be a director of many, many companies and to have one’s photograph displayed on all possible occasions, but in the end it is the final result that counts, and that is important.

Sir, I also wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the state of the steel industry. We have had reports that there is a shortage of steel from Iscor, which is presenting a grave problem to industry. One firm has reported that it may have to put off staff because of the shortage. Another organization has suggested that Iscor, at this date, has only supplied 80 per cent of their August commitments. Recent Press reports stated that Iscor was slipping out of the list of the 200 top companies outside the United States and had only a growth rate of 4.9 per cent. This is disclosed in the list printed in the latest issue of Fortune. Iscor does not feature amongst the world’s top 20 steel producers and is only halfway towards equalling the output of the twentieth biggest producer. I would like the Minister to tell us whether he is satisfied with this programme and when he expects the backlog in steel supplies to be met. The potential of Iscor is virtually unlimited but its growth sights will have to be set appreciably higher.

Sir, I agree with a lot of what has been said by the hon. member for Brakpan with regard to developing our export trade. But while developing our export trade I think the Minister must bear in mind that it is not always desirable to export ore. We have to look long-term in this country to the day when we want to process those ores ourselves. Instead of sending ores in unlimited quantities overseas to be processed there and then importing back into South Africa the manufactured article, I think that we should I have regard to our present ore reserves to ensure as far as possible that only such ores will be exported as is absolutely necessary to meet our balance of payments position, and other ores should be conserved.

The long-term future of this country is a manufacturing country, not an agricultural country, not a country which simply exports its ores, thus mining away our capital. Our long-term future lies in the development of secondary industry, and in order to develop secondary industry we have to be efficient; we have to have quality control, and in order to be efficient we must reduce costs, and in order to be able to reduce costs, we have to build up a stable labour force. A stable labour force will reduce costs as it becomes more familiar with the work in the factories. They will become conscious of their responsibilities to the factory and will develop a loyalty to the factory. Hon. members will know from their own experience that if you go to a factory which is efficient and which has long-term experience, you will find that the labour turnover in the factory is very low. If you go to a factory which has a high labour turnover, you will find that its costs are high. We need to emphasize quality control and we need to emphasize the question of costs.

While the incentive scheme which the Minister has outlined in general terms, and which we will examine later, is a good incentive to industrialists to export and encourages South African industries to manufacture goods for export, we are not going to get the export trade unless we have improved quality a competitive price and, furthermore, an adequate market. The hon. member for Brakpan quite rightly suggests that not only should we have a show in Johannesburg but that we should have similar shows in the metropolitan centres of Europe and elsewhere.

Sir, that is one reason why I regret very much that South Africa was not represented at Expo 70 in Japan. When I was in Japan in October the year before last, the Minister of Economic Affairs there expressed regret, in my presence, to our Consul in Tokyo that we did not have an exhibition there. He said that it was a great pity that South Africa was not represented. I discussed the matter with our Consul there and he indicated that the costs were very, very high. But despite the fact that the costs are very high, in my opinion we lost a golden opportunity because millions of people from all over the world went to that exhibition. It could have been a show window for South Africa. South Africa can produce goods and is in fact exporting to various parts of the world.

One of the biggest drawbacks in South Africa is not the Government but the industrialists themselves who are not going thereto to see that their goods are adequately marketed. Industrialists should go there and see for themselves; they should study the market conditions. There should be a partnership between the Government Departments, the trade consuls and the industrialists themselves. Having made sure that the cost of the article is economic and that the quality is sound, they should then see whether there is adequate and efficient marketing because efficient marketing can ensure that we will build up a market which will last. It is not the original order that counts; it is the repetitive business which in the long term wins out and gives South Africa the good name she deserves.

I stand up more specifically to raise a few matters involving the marine or fishing industry, which is a very important factor in my constituency. In the first place I want to convey the warm thanks and appreciation of the large, general fishing community in the coastal areas to the hon. the Minister, Fishcor and the Government, for the huge job done by Fishcor in recent years in supplying marine facilities, particularly fishing harbours, on those parts of our coastline. In 1963 the fishing harbour development was entrusted to Fishcor. Sir, it was a huge success. In recent years a mammoth job has, in fact, been done by Fishcor in supplying fishing harbour facilities. I have been instructed by the general fishing public to convey their thanks and appreciation to the Government. In the first place I am thinking of the very neat and practical job that was done in the vicinity of the Saldanha Bay harbour; the construction of a very neat factory wharf in the vicinity; the creation of a special wharf for the crayfish industry at Pepper Bay —a fine project in itself.

Then there is the erection of a slipway with a capacity of about 1,200 tons, with two sideslips for ships of up to 750 tons. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the fishing public in that vicinity asked me specially to convey their warm thanks and appreciation to the Government for the work that was done in this respect. Then there is also the project at St. Helena, completed at a cost of about R1½ million. For many years our fishing factories on this coastline were altogether with out protection, and here Fishcor also played a tremendous part. Then I also want to refer to the project at the Berg River mouth. Since the hon. the Minister now carries the important responsibility in respect of the marine industry, I want to express the hope that at some time or other he will pay a visit there to acquaint himself with the fine working of that project, about which there was quite a bit of doubt as to whether it would furnish the results we expected of it.

To cut a long story short, along this coastline, at these various spots, Fishcor played a huge part in supplying fishing harbour facilities. I am aware that in recent years Fishcor has given attention to supplying a project at Lamberts Bay as well, a project that can serve the fishing public of Lamberts Bay and environs. I am also aware of the fact that the University of Stellenbosch is engaged in experiments in this connection. As far as I know —a previous Minister also referred to it on occasion—there are two projects that are being concentrated on. The estimated cost of the one is about R3 million, while that for the other is about R6 million. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell us what the position is in connection with these experiments. I think the time has come for the results of those experiments to be made known. The public in this vicinity have a great longing to see the results of the experiments carried out in this connection. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us what the results are in this connection. While I am mentioning this, I take it that at a later stage, as Fishcor’s programme develops, attention must also be given to harbours such as Port Nolloth, and Boegoeberg, situated in the constituencies of other hon. members.

I am referring to that because I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for us to begin giving thought to the creation, along this entire western coastline, of a light form of marine traffic, whereby these harbours, that have now been created by Fishcor, can be linked up. These are great investments that have been made, and they are also of a very practical nature. I am thinking, for example, of a place such as Lamberts Bay, where there is no planning afoot for the creation of a big new fishing harbour. It is interesting to note that the University of Stellenbosch, under the leadership of Professor Page, made a physical survey of the hinterland of that area. One of the conclusions these people reached is that if a handy fishing harbour could be supplied at a place such as Lamberts Bay, a little larger in size, a light form of marine traffic could develop between these harbours, which would fit in very well at this spot, among others.

Since it appears that Fishcor must make this investment, I wondered whether it would not be possible for the hon. the Minister on his part to take the initiative in discussing the matter with the Department of Railways. It is possible that they could be prepared to add another R1 million to that. Then we could create something decent there, so that marine traffic could also make use of it. Thereby we would also give this fishing harbour a greater scope than was initially intended for it. I would, however, appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would tell us what the scope of results of the experiments in this connection will be. As far as this facet is concerned, a very large investment has been made by Fishcor in recent years; an investment that is appreciated at all costs.

I now want to go further by putting a question. I think that the time has unquestionably come for South Africa to make a completely new investment in that indusry, alongside that which has already been made to date. It must be an investment, for example, aimed at training a group of students annually for the marine industry in its various facets. It is true that useful work in this connection has been done in recent years by the Cape Technical College, whether in collaboration with the Department of Sea Fisheries or not, I do not know. Particularly in respect of fishing technology, and certain facets of oceanography. I think this was done in collaboration with the Department of Sea Fisheries.

However, I think that the work being done here is, in the first place, not aimed at the practical over-all working of the marine industry in all its various facets. It is true that the sea to-day offers a totally new field for the application of man’s ingenuity. South Africa cannot afford the costly process of exploring space, with people penetrating its outer regions. I think that more purposeful training for and exploration of the sea lies within our capabilities, particularly with our long coastline of almost 2,000 miles. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to give a much more calculated look in this direction.

I think, for example, that the time has come, in a large fishing community such as Velddrif and Laaiplek, or others—I am mentioning only the biggest on our coastline— for us to purposefully equip a division, in consultation with the Cape Technical College, for example, with suitable buildings and equipment, where training for the marine industry can be done purposefully. If the plan I am suggesting is too contentious from the financial point of view, let us then do this in another way. There may be other simpler ways, but I really think that the time has come in South Africa, from a practical point of view, for us to make an investment that will yield dividends. I want to point out that whole working of the marine industry, in all its various forms, has to-day taken on proportions that compel us to give it a closer look. I am thinking, for example, of the handling of ships and the literally thousands of rand invested in it by, inter alia, bodies such as Fishcor. The question is whether we really have the trained and technical people to-day to work with this apparatus.

There are also various other facets of the marine industry. I am thinking, for example, of seamanship in general, and other aspects such as signalling, the types of tackle, the making, repairing and storage of nets. To-day tremendously large sums of money are involved in the making of nets, and in handling them. I am thinking, for example, of the nets that are handled in the catching of anchovies. There are literally thousands of rand invested in this. The time has come for our people to receive at least elementary training in the handling of this equipment. There are also other facets that I have in mind; for example, fishing methods in general, the handling of the expensive hydraulic apparatus on fishing boats, i.e. the power block. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Moorreesburg will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. One of our speakers will certainly be dealing with the fishing industry. I would, with the permission of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, like to extend the dialogue on the subject of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and deal with one or two of the basic instruments in selected documents as contained in volume 4 of the text of the General Agreement. I know that the hon. the Minister has given us a very clear and concise comment on the background and our responsibilities towards GATT, but these responsibilities are so vast and have such an effect on our industrialists that they can well be examined.

I think we can well appreciate the preamble to the GATT Agreement which reads as follows—

I raise this matter, Mr. Chairman, because of the important bearing which our contractual regulations under GATT are exerting on our present economic system, threatened as we are with an adverse trade deficit of some R500 million. I know that the GATT negotiations are of a highly complicated nature and that the two departments under the hon. the Minister’s jurisdiction, Industry and Commerce, are both vitally involved, as is also indirectly the Minister of Finance, because of the fact that under our GATT discussions we have also to take into account discussions with the International Monetary Fund. The hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech made reference to the fact that our inventories have grown so considerably, and in fact that they have risen during the last financial year ended 30th June, 1970, by some R450 million. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not endeavour to pinpoint the reasons for this considerable rise. I make this request because studying the economic development plan of the Government for the years 1968 to 1973, in a projection that is made therein, the following is commented upon—

And yet, for some reason in this past year, we have had an increase in inventories of R430 million. I just wondered whether the Government were not contemplating the growth rate of 10 per cent mentioned by my hon. Leader. It is in the interests of the country that our exports should be stimulated. To do this, our growing manufacturing industries must be encouraged and, to some extent, protected. On the other hand, commerce has always been against the implementation of import control. I know that the Department of Industries has the strongest reservations against the relaxation of import control. It has always been recognized that import control has never been meant primarily for the protection of industries and that the only correct method of protecting industries, or one of them, is through protective tariffs. In reality, in the past, industry has benefited indirectly, but nevertheless very materially through the application of import control. It is surprising, therefore, that our hon. Minister of Finance recently indicated that he will be seeking to negotiate with GATT and member countries of GATT in a determined effort to obtain tariff protection against imports. I think that we are well aware of the valuable work which has been carried out for some time now in negotiations with GATT by our present Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Steyn, and also Mr. Kitshoff. I think no one in the country has done more to smooth the difficulties of both our importers and our manufacturers than these two gentlemen. I think that a word of appreciation is due to Mr. Steyn for the success which he has achieved in the difficult negotiations with individual trading countries, which took place during last July, when he visited Washington, Ottawa, London and Brussels for preliminary talks with these Governments in preparation for final negotiations at Gatt level.

It does appear that South Africa wishes to raise tariffs on virtually all idustrial imports to protect our budding, but not necessarily fully competitive local industries, while at the same time we can offer, as the Minister indicated, few concessions in return. Our problem is that we fall under the category of being neither a fully industrialised country nor a newly developing country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gardens must excuse me if I do not follow him up. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said. I share in his expression of thanks to the Government and Fishcor for the development of fishing harbours. The amount of R1 million that appears in the South-West Africa Account under Vote No. 21, is in respect of the first phase of the development of a fishing harbour at Walvis Bay. A project that will cost R4 million is now coming into effect. This programme comprises an access channel, a ship hoist and a ship repair wharf. The present slipway at Walvis Bay, that belongs to the South African Railways and Harbours, only has a tonnage of 300 tons. The hoisting capacity of the new ship hoist will be 1,650 tons. Hon. members will therefore notice that this is a tremendous improvement. This hoist will even be able to handle the biggest railway tugs. Although this step forward is welcomed, great concern also prevails at present. It is clear that strict control and protection measures will have to be employed to save the fishing sources of South-West Africa from destruction. The economy of South-West Africa rests heavily on two pillars, i.e. mining and the fishing industry. Without either of these two South-West Africa would be having a difficult time. Since it is generally accepted that mining is a vanishing asset, our Government must ensure that the fishing industry does not also become a vanishing asset. The inhabitants of Walvis Bay, it goes without saying, have the biggest direct interest in the industry, and in the preservation of these sources. The State, the Railways and the city council have large capital investments in Walvis Bay. Although the Railways would probably be able to shoulder its losses, South-West Africa, as I have already said, could only with difficulty do without this income. The municipality could, under no circumstances, forfeit this income from the fishing industry. Other schemes, such as the hydro-electric power scheme, would suffer, because that scheme would not be able to function profitably either.

The question now arises: What is actually endangering this industry? I shall present three factors. Firstly there are the sea birds, secondly there are the seals and thirdly the South African factory ships. By approximation the sea birds, the lesser of these evils, eat an estimated 30,000 tons of fish annually. There are conflicting opinions in respect of the seals. The seal population is estimated by some at 200,000, and by others even as high as 600,000. For my argument I shall use the figure of 300,000, to be on the conservative side. I want to focus hon. members’ attention on the fact that, according to scientists, a seal eats between 10 and 12 lbs. of fish daily. If we take into account that a seal eats 10 lbs. of fish, and that he eats for 200 days out of the 365, which is also a conservative estimate, we find that one seal eats one ton of fish a year. The 300,000 seals consequently eat 300,000 tons of fish a year. Two concessions exist for the processing of seals, one at Luderitz and one at Cape Cross. The one at Luderitz last year processed 43,000 furs, and the one at Cape Cross, where the problem exists, only 5,000. This concession at Cape Cross was granted as far back as 1895, and the concession holder there is also the owner of two hectares of land, which would probably make any negotiation for additional land there more difficult. Apart from this fish that the seals eat, they are also a tremendous trail when the seamen are catching fish, and hundreds of these seals land in the nets. I want to advocate that drastic and urgent measures be applied to reduce this flock of seals. These fish could be applied much more economically.

The third factor, the greatest evil of the three, is the factory ships. We are grateful that they have been kept away there this year owing to the good offices of the Government. Whether they will return, and when this will happen, still remains an open question. There is, indeed, nothing to prevent them. These two factory ships have undoubtedly dealt South-West Africa’s fishing industry a tremendous blow. If they were to return, it would lead to the total collapse of this industry, with catastrophic consequences for Walvis Bay and, to a certain extent, for South-West Africa as well. It is important to note that a very specific condition, under which a licence was granted to these two factory ships, was that they should operate outside the 12-mile limit. These gentlemen have in no way whatsoever abided by this condition. It is generally accepted, and confirmed by the fishermen, that a good 80 per cent of their catches take place within the 12-mile limit. Let us look at their methods. They mostly catch fish at night, when there is a thick mist, and when necessary they even do so without lights. They have their own patrol service with which they keep a watch on the State’s patrol service, and over their own small radio transmitters they then tell their ships when to go in and when to come out. These are deliberate poaching methods that are being applied. I just very briefly want to present a paysheet to the committee. According to the logbook of a certain ship 4,588 tons of fish were off-loaded during this month. As a result of a quota system, according to which all fish in excess of 156 tons that are offloaded at a single time becomes the property of the factory ship, there was provisionally 4,155 tons allocated to that ship. Subsequently 5 per cent was subtracted for water, an alleged 20 per cent for the right to off-load there, and a further 5 tons per load for the maintenance of the Dunellon. That is their own patrol boat. Eventually these fishermen were paid for 3,030 tons. Their catch was 4,588 tons. If this can be regarded as a normal instance, it means that the figure they divulged exceeded the actual quota by 50 per cent. Neither are the fishermen paid for that remaining portion of the fish. A further evil is the dumping of the fish that goes hand in hand with that. These fishermen are often caught with more fish in the nets than they can load. The method of top-line release is not used there, and then the fish are dumped. Time and again the patrol aircraft of the South-West Africa Administration has reported that the sea is literally blanketed with dead fish.

Patrolling is extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of reasons I have just mentioned. Attempts at prosecution in the past were aimed at these small catches, the private owners. They are hired to catch the fish for the factory ships, and to bring it to the shops. These people are virtually compelled to go and fetch the fish there, because they are dependant upon that income to meet their own obligations and to pay the loans on their boats. The actual transgressors, i.e. the licence-holders, are never involved. The question that comes to mind is whether the receiver is not as bad as the thief? The factory ships that are engaged in this process of extermination, last year contributed R1.03 million to the tax fund. The nine land-bound factories contributed R2.93 million. Over and above that, R9.5 million was paid out by the fishing industry in salaries and wages at Walvis Bay and Luderitz. This has tremendously increased the spending power of those centres. It must be remembered that the individual must also pay tax on this money again. [Time expired.]

When business was suspended, I was saying that our overall balance of payments position is so important that we were brought under strong pressure from the International Monetary Fund to drop our present escape clause under G.A.T.T., namely article 12. It is for this reason and because of the importance of our overall balance of payments position in this relation that I feel that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs must not take exception to the fact that a Sunday paper did quote an example of the hon. the Minister of Finance making one statement on 6th September in an interview given to a reporter of that paper and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs making a slightly different statement on the 8th. The two statements were as follows—

And then on the 8:h the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in a speech at the opening of the Na.ional Trade Fair at Milner Park, said—

Sir, I happen to agree with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The position of our manufacturers at this stage is critical. They are very concerned about the possibility of foreign dumping. They have been asked by our whole economy to invest in heavy capital commitments in order that we may meet our export target. It is only right that the uncertainties which worry the manufacturer in addition to the uncertainties of labour should be resolved they should be told by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, as soon as his Department can do so, just where they stand in the negotiations which are taking place overseas. Once this is resolved then the assistance which has been given under the Budget, both in the form of manufacturing assistance and also export assistance subsidies, will amount to reality. They can then go ahead and endeavour to do what this country must do if they are to continue to exist satisfactorily, and that is manufacture at competitive prices which can meet our export markets.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, dealt with a matter which has been discussed quite frequently during the past month or two. During the Second-Reading debate of the Budget the hon. member for Von Brandis touched upon, inter alia, the question of how and what products could be marketed abroad. In replying to him on that occasion I pointed out to him the steps which had been taken by this Government over the years precisely in order to facilitate this position as far as possible. I pointed out the exporters’ allowances introduced this year and the investment allowances which had been reintroduced by this Budget to obtain surplus capacity in our industries. I pointed out the fact that the assistance rendered to universities had increased by 100 per cent over two years, plus the additional provision made in respect of companies making donations to universities, and also to the fact that individuals were being allowed to deduct up to R800 of their taxable income for donations to universities. This is a further endeavour to provide our country and our industries with trained manpower. I also pointed out the fact that between the years 1962 to 1968 there was, on an average, a steady increase of approximately 2.7 per cent in the cost of living index, compared to a much larger increase in other Western countries.

One is able to mention numerous such measures which have been taken by this Government, in the first place, to bring about import replacement in South Africa, that is, to encourage those industries which are in a position to replace imports, but, in the second place, to take active steps for the promotion of exports as well. I agree with the hon. member that our industrialists realize to-day more than ever before in the past that it is essential for them to do their part in finding export markets tor their products in the outside world. I know of decisions which have already been taken by organized industry, in terms of which they are going to appoint people at great expense to make a thorough study of the problems of the various industries in South Africa, in the first place at home but, in the second place, also of their problems as far as competition on the world markets is concerned. When making that speech, I appealed to the Government to render all possible assistance, not only on the part of the Board of Trade and Industries, but also on the part of all Government Departments in order to assist organized industry in South Africa in these attempts they are now making to institute a thorough investigation into their own problems and in this way to place themselves in a stronger competitive position on world markets, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the Republic of South Africa.

I want to mention one industry to-night in respect of which I believe this co-operation between the State and the industry concerned may lead to a great deal more foreign exchange being earned for our country. In 1966 the total value of cut, polished and mounted diamonds throughout the world was estimated at R500 million. In that year cut, polished and mounted diamonds to the value of approximately R35 million were exported from South Africa. In that same year the local market for this product amounted to approximately R4 million, which means that the total turnover in respect of polished diamonds in South Africa for the year 1966 came to approximately R4 million. It so happens that South Africa is one of the largest producers of diamonds, industrial diamonds and precious stones, and that there are relatively few people employed in this important industry in South Africa. In 1968, 1,200 people, of whom approximately 500 were apprentices, were employed by diamond cutters, I think it was only since 1966 that there has been a substantial increase in the number of apprentices employed in this industry.

The problem as I see it and as I have often discussed it with people engaged in the industry, is, in the first place, that South Africa could probably earn far more by cutting, polishing and mounting diamonds and probably also semi-precious stones, and probably even through allied directions such as the production of articles from gold, silver and other metals. But as rar as diamonds are concerned, this industry should probably be regarded as falling into two categories, that is, the larger diamonds and the smaller diamonds. It so happens that our entire diamond cutting industry is actually based on the cutting of diamonds of one carat or more. For this very reason, I think people employed in this industry are in a position to earn extraordinary high salaries, from R500 to perhaps R800 or even R1,000 per month. The question arises as to whether, for the sake of South Africa, active attempts should not be made to cut the smaller diamonds—which are being cut on a large scale in Belgium as well as in Israel—in South Africa and to obtain a share of that market for ourselves. An estimate which has been made of the number of people formerly employed in this industry overseas and who have already to a small extent, settled in South Africa, reveals that approximately 20,000 people are involved in the diamond cutting industry in Belgium while only 1,200 people are at present engaged in this industry in South Africa. Whereas we could only manage a total product to the value of approximately R40 million for South Africa in 1966, this ought to be closer to approximately R100 million per year, if we give this matter our serious consideration. But, Sir, this will inevitably mean that fresh discussions with this industry will have to be commenced and that serious attempts will have to be made to establish an industry for the smaller diamonds in South Africa. I appreciate that there may be opposition on the part of the fortunate group of 1,200 people who are already engaged in this industry. But I want to appeal to the Minister —in view of the fact that it is probably one of his duties to find out to what extent South Africa’s foreign exchange position can be improved in the future by encouraging these industries—that we should try to obtain for South Africa its rightful share as regards the cutting of smaller diamonds. This will probably mean that a new policy will have to be pursued in the sphere of work reservation and—in view of the fact that the wages in regard to the cutting of these smaller diamonds are relatively low—permission will have to be granted for Coloureds to be employed for the most part as machine operators in the cutting of these smaller diamonds, particularly in places such as Cape Town and in the Western Cape. I think that—in view of the fact that opposition still exists—if the Government were to adopt a firm attitude and tell the industry, as it exists in South Africa at present, that a permanent livelihood would be guaranteed to those who are at present engaged in the industry, in the sense that the cutting of diamonds from one carat and more would be reserved for them, the way would be paved; not only for the Whites but also for the Coloureds, to enter this smaller diamond cutting industry, in view of the fact that South Africa has definitely not had its fair share of this industry. Sir, I am going to deal only with this one industry to-night. I believe that there are various other industries and that, if a cordial spirit of co-operation could be established between Government Departments and the various industries and if they could be invited to approach the Government with their problems, we would probably, through this joint action, succeed in future years in entering the world markets in many more spheres, and in coping in this way with this situation which is developing to-day.

I hope the hon. member for Vasco will excuse me if I do not comment on the speech which he has just made. I want to raise two subjects which will take up the limited time available to me.

I would like to go back, first of all, to the question of foreign exchange reserves and balance of payments, because it seems to me that in the speech which the hon. the Minister made there was a definite contradiction between his aims when he spoke in one context and his aims when he spoke in another. On the one hand he referred to the position of the country in terms of Article 12 of GATT which limits the use of import control to conditions when our foreign exchange reserves and balance of payments warrant quantitative restrictions on imports. Sir, on the 19th December, 1969, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor made the announcement that after consultations between the Government and GATT and the International Monetary Fund it had been decided that the level of our reserves and the factors underlying our balance of payments were such that the provisions of Article 12 of GATT could be disinvoked. This means, as I understand the position, that we now have an obligation to remove import control. I will appreciate the problems which we have in dismantling import control. This is a measure which has been with us for a long time—21 years in fact, nearly as long as we have had the Nationalist Government—and because it has been with us for so long, it has become a powerful element in the protection of local industries, a fact to which the Minister referred in his speech, I regard that position as an unfortunate one, not only because import control used as a protective measure is in conflict with the ideals of GATT, but also when it is used as a weapon to protect industry and I am afraid the Government has deliberately so used it on occasion, it has the effect of distorting the economic development in the country and of diverting resources away from their most economical uses. When import control is imposed, it is imposed not after the thorough investigations which the Board of Trade does before it imposes tariff protection, but it is imposed after far less investigation. Nevertheless we have to face the fact that we are in the position where if we are to dismantle import control, we must have tariff protection in its place. We have to have protection in its place to protect the industries which have been enjoying protection as a result of import control. I appreciate the difficulties of our country when re-negotiating with other GATT members, because as the hon. the Minister has said, that would mean making concessions and we are not in the position to make a great number of concessions. That was what the Minister has said on the one hand; on the other hand he referred to what he had said a few days ago in Johannesburg when he was speaking to industrialists. He told them that unless they were able to increase exports, he might have to apply harsher measures as far as the control of imports were concerned. To me that sounds a bit contradictory to the first statement and I want to know definitely from the hon. the Minister as to whether the Government has in mind any measures to re-invoke the measures …

I have never said that and I do not have it in mind.

You indicated that you may have to limit imports.

No, I did not make any threats. I only encouraged them to increase exports.

I am very glad to hear that, because I believe that the re-imposition or tightening up of import control would be a very retrograde step. I know that there must be some concern because the hon. the Minister of Finance in his speech mentioned the falling reserves and the substantial adverse balance in trade. However, I do feel that that adverse balance of trade, which is the biggest adverse balance we have ever had, may well be of a non-recurring nature. I say this because it is associated with the increase in inventories which have built up in the last year. That I think has been confirmed by the latest annual report by the Reserve Bank. I also would regard a tightening of import control as a retrograde step because import control only deals with the symptoms of the problem and does not go to the root of the problem. It is also inflationary in that it limits competition in the country and for manufacturers by restricting imports.

Now that we have had the indication of the hon. the Minister that he has no intention of tightening import control, I would like to suggest to him that he take immediate steps to relax import control. If he does so, it would have the advantage of simplifying the whole complicated procedure which takes up a lot of time and causes a lot of paper work not only for his Department and the Customs Department, but also for importers and clearing agents. I would suggest to him that the articles which are covered by paragraph 2 of Government Notice No. 3839/69 containing the regulation governing import control this year, should be freed from import control. At present paragraph 2 articles require import permits, but those permits are granted “to bona fide merchants and manufacturers to meet their full reasonable requirements”. In other words, there is no practical restriction to the importation of those articles. I believe that if the hon. the Minister were to free those articles in paragraph 2 from import control altogether, he would go a long way to meeting our obligations under article 12 of the GATT Agreement. He would not be prejudicing South African manufacturers because the position will not be fundamentally changed. At the same time he will go a long way towards simplifying the whole procedure of import control, because the largest slice of our imports are those that are covered by paragraph 2.

Now I would like to deal with another subject that the hon. the Minister dealt with in his speech, namely the decline in the rate of expansion in investment in fixed capital by the private sector. I regard this as a very serious state of affairs, because it reflects either the inability or the unwillingness of the private sector to make provision for a growing economy in the future. I think the position is rather more serious than is indicated by the figures, because the points of growth in private fixed investments are by commerce, the financial institutions, in private transport and in residential buildings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia will excuse me if I do not follow him in his argument because, on the one hand, the time available to me is so limited and, on the other hand, because we have, with a sense of appreciation, taken cognisance of the fact that the hon. the Minister is quite aware of the problems which exist in regard to the so-called GATT agreement, particularly in respect of section 12 thereof, but then too, we should like to express our appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister has informed us that he will take our position into account if Britain were to join the European Common Market. It gives us confidence for the future to know that these matters will definitely receive the attention of those people who are dealing with them. I want to leave the matter at that because I want to deal with quite a different matter to-night.

In the short time at my disposal I want to express a few thoughts in respect of the establishment of border industries. We can remember quite well that the former hon. member for Hospital, Mr. A. Gorshell, telling us with great gusto about six years ago how foolish it would be of us to spend our time on the settlement of border industries. Hon. members opposite derived much pleasure out of it, particularly in referring to Rosslyn and Hammarsdale, and in ridiculing with great gusto this idea which originated, that we wanted to settle industries in those areas. A few years have passed since then and we are proud when looking back on an area such as Rosslyn—to which I want to confined myself in particular—and on the progress that has been made during the past five or six years. I almost want to say that one cannot describe in words the progress that has taken place there. It is true that Rosslyn is situated adjacent to Pretoria or in the immediate vicinity of Pretoria.

Hear, hear!

I just want to ask that hon. member who said “hear, hear” now, whether, when he wants to teach his child to swim, he teaches him in a deep pool or in a shallow pool? Surely, Mr. Chairman, when you tackle something new in South Africa, you tackle it in a place where it will succeed. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that one does not do it as the United Party does, which is now going to put up a candidate in my constituency where he does not stand a chance. Rather let him fight an election in a constituency where he stands a better chance. We have proceeded in this way.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is talking of a border industry. Does he want to tell me that an independent state is going to be established within 20 miles of Pretoria?

The fact of the matter is that there is a large concentration of Bantu in the immediate vicinity of Pretoria. There were people who had confidence in the policy of the Government and who took the risk and went to settle there. We are proud to be able to say that there is a large group of industrialists who have achieved great success. We have succeeded with the assistance of the Government. I now want to tell hon. members that we think that we have succeeded to such an extent that Rosslyn is not only fully occupied, but virtually over-occupied. We are beginning to think that, if new industries were to settle there, it may no longer be necessary to apply incentive measures in that area. [Interjections.] I do not have the time to argue that case any further. This is a policy which has developed and which is going to stay. But we just want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister that, when further border industry benefits are considered in future, we should always think of those pioneers who went to those areas and who had confidence in the policy of this Government and who made a success of their undertakings, as the real pioneers.

In view of the fact that the position has arisen where this policy was carried out so successfully at Rosslyn, Hammarsdale and at other places, it has now become necessary that industrial settlement should take place elsewhere. In this regard we have in mind, for example, Rustenburg, Brits, Ladysmith and so many other places. Those areas have an abundance of natural resources.

However, in the little time at my disposal I want to advance a special plea for those areas adjacent to the Bantu homelands and in which industrial settlement is not so easy as a result of a series of circumstances. I have in mind particularly my own constituency, which is adjacent to the Hershel homeland, and where the local community is doing everything in its power and has succeeded to establish an infrastructure there which will be conducive to industrial settlement. On the one hand, we should like to express our appreciation to all those bodies which were responsible for the fact that we had an announcement to the effect that a place such as Zastron may enjoy border industrial benefits. The community itself has done much in this regard. We are grateful towards Government bodies for the assistance we have received there. While we are aware of the fact, however, that development should take place at a very slow rate there, we are pleading with the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Department to have the utmost sympathy with those industrialists who are prepared to go to places where industrial settlement is undertaken on a small scale, and to adopt a lenient attitude towards and assist those who have confidence in those places which are probably somewhat less suitable for industrial settlement. For it is in those very homelands where there is almost a surplus of manpower and where settlement can be initiated to develop South Africa even further. We do not doubt for a moment that we enjoy the goodwill of this Department in those areas as well. We say this on the basis of the grants which have already been made to those areas. If I have advanced a plea for a particular area, I advance a plea for all those areas which are probably less privileged areas, namely those areas involved in the development of border areas and other less developed areas. We want to thank the hon. the Minister for having made available more than R¾ million for those areas. We trust that this contribution will belie the predictions of our friends on that side of the House, and that is that the direction in which we were moving, was doomed to failure. The amount of more than R¾ million for these slow developing areas— we are not even talking about those self-developing areas now—will prove to the hon. members opposite who were so sceptical about the course we had adopted that we have also …

We are still sceptical.

Yes, you are still sceptical. But we will show you, and we have already shown you, what progress we have made in that respect. We shall show you that we have made progress in respect of those areas which have lagged behind and we will ultimately show South Africa that it was once again the National Party and its policies that were right and that it was once again the United Party which was wrong.

Mr. Chairman, if I were a member of the National Party, one of the few subjects on which I would choose to make a speech, would be the success of the border industry aspect of National Party policy. The hon. member dealt with Rosslyn in glowing terms. A most pertinent question was put to him by the hon. member for Pinelands but, despite quite a lengthy reply by the hon. gentleman, the one point which he did not answer was whether or not the Native reserves adjacent to Rosslyn, less than 20 miles from Pretoria, would subsequently become part of an independent Black state. Not a word was said about that.

I am not making policy from a back bench.

This is the difficulty that neither the back bench nor the front bench, when questions on this aspect of the policy of the Government are raised, ever give a clear answer. Before I leave this aspect which I am dealing with only to reply to the hon. gentleman, I think it is curious that, whereas 20 or 15 miles from Pretoria there is a Bantu homeland as it is called …

The hon. member cannot discuss the political aspects of border industries. He can only discuss the economic aspect.

… whereas 15 miles from Pretoria one has successful economic development of a border industrial area, 10 miles from Durban on both sides there are homelands, adjacent to which there is successful economic development, but the border industry benefits do not apply to Durban. How it can be that, with two geographically similar situations Pretoria is a border industrial area whereas Durban is not, passes my imagination. That is the position to-day. We shall perhaps hear more about this in a subsequent debate.

Five weeks ago I stood up here during the debate of the Minister of Transport and dealt with the repercussions to the sugar industry arising out of the shortage of trucks supplied by the South African Railways to that industry. The hon. the Minister of Transport replied to the effect that he was aware of the position that part of the difficulty was that the lines could not take the amount of traffic that was being offered and that the Railways were doing their utmost to bring about a normal state of affairs whereby the cut of 25 per cent which then pertained would be reduced and the sugar industry would be given its full allocation of trucks. Like many industries, the supply of Railway transport to the sugar industry is the life of the industry. I raise this matter in its economic results because it is an industry which falls under the Department of the hon. the Minister whose Vote we are dealing with now. Five weeks ago one was promised that the Railways were doing their best. The hope was expressed by the hon. the Minister that conditions would improve. Having suffered then a 25 per cent cut, the industry since Wednesday of this week, has been faced with a 40 per cent cut in the supply of trucks available. I have discussed this matter at length during the days that have ensued, almost a week, with the hon. the Minister whose Vote we are now discussing. I have also discussed it with the hon. the Minister of Transport. The stage has now been reached where no progress whatsoever has been made in alleviating the position for the sugar industry of South Africa. We have reached the stage where it is necessary that I raise this under the Vote of the hon. the Minister because no relief can be obtained anywhere else, despite all the negotiations one has undertaken during the last few days.

I have figures here relating to one of the 15 mills in the industry. I propose to deal briefly with these because they give an indication of the almost irreparable hardship, the state almost of disaster, which faces the industry if this state of affairs is to continue for the rest of the season. I have figures here which relate to the last eleven weeks of the cutting season from late in June until the 5th of September. Apart from that first day of that period of two and a half months, every single week reflects the supply of trucks by the Railway Administration as being short of the demand. Throughout that period of time there has been a cut in the number of trucks allocated to the industry ranging from 19 per cent up to 40 per cent. At the present moment, for the foreseeable future, the industry is faced with a 40 per cent cut. That means that there has been a shortfall from one mill out of 15 in the delivery of cane of some 27,000 tons. This means a gross value to the growers concerned of wellnigh R160,000; a R160,000 loss in revenue to the growers concerned in respect of one mill in the industry alone. If we are to be faced with a 50 per cent cut, which the cut was originally to be, then it would mean a loss to the growers concerned of wellnigh R23,000 per week in respect of one mill. If we are to face a 40 per cent cut, it means a loss to the growers in respect of one mill in the industry of R22,000 per week.

The cut which was announced on Friday last week but was imposed from Wednesday of this week, is indeterminate. It is said to be temporary, but the cuts we have suffered from the very beginning of the season—and we are more than halfway through it—were said to be temporary. The position is that in respect of the one mill that I am referring to, if we are to be faced with this restriction for a month, then it will be quite impossible for the crop to be delivered by the end of the season. This is clear beyond any argument. It is quite impossible because the growers concerned cannot rateably deliver their cane even if the trucks became available in a month’s time. What is the result of this? Already we have a shortage in the crop of this season because of one of the worst droughts we have ever known. We are tied to an international agreement. I want to quote a short statement from the address of the vice-chairman of the South African Sugar Association which comes out of the Sugar Journal of August, the very latest one. Referring to the gradual return of stability in the industry which is being brought about by the international sugar agreement, he said the following—

In other words, Sir, the successful operation of this agreement, which is the very lifeblood of the industry in South Africa and in the world, is dependent upon an adequate supply of sugar in the export market. With South Africa suffering, as it is at the present time, under a substantial drop in the crop because of drought, and to have in addition an artificial restriction in the crop due to the inability of the Railways, which is a Government body, to transport the crop, we are faced with a most serious state of affairs in the industry. Government action is directly responsible for this most damaging blow to the sugar industry. It is damaging to the grower because part of his crop will be left standing in the fields, deteriorating in sugar content on which he is paid by weight and purity month by month, while he is suffering daily one of the worst droughts we have ever experienced. The miller will suffer because his mill is being starved of essential throughput upon which his profit depends. The country will suffer because, as I have said, a valuable export market upon which the international sugar agreement is dependent, is being gravely prejudiced. I hope the hon. the Minister will take action in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Zululand in respect of trucks. Up to now this debate has been conducted with so much charity that I virtually hesitate to enter the debate. On 27th January, 1959, the late Dr. Verwoerd said in this House—

Now, Sir, it is significant to me that these were the words of the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1959 and that in the year 1970, 11 years later, we have the phenomenon of the hon. member for Parktown coming to this House this evening and saying—

And that in spite of these predictions of 11 years ago. To me this has interesting political implications, because in spite of everything which has happened in Africa in this time, this National Party Government was elected at six elections, from 1948 to 1970, by the electorate of the Republic of South Africa. And in substance this mandate by the electorate came to pass through a highly specialized economy of this country, an economy which does not allow itself to be indoctrinated and economists who are truly connoisseurs; this was the fundamental issue virtually from election to election, i.e. the course and the future of one’s economy in this country. One asks oneself why, and the reply is obvious. The reply was given to us also by the hon. member for Parktown, and that is that the most important prerequisite of each entrant to the market and to the economy and to the manufacturing industry and to commerce, is a stable Government. Because we in this country have had a stable Government throughout these years, we have experienced that entry into the economy in this country. Sir, these industrialists do not wish to make any political investment. What they want to do and are doing is to invest profitably, and even if they did not agree with the policy of the National Party, they nevertheless accepted that the policy of the National Party, this policy of apartheid, this policy of separate development, contains major benefits for the economy. Sir, for obvious reasons and in view of the experience these people and others have had in Africa, there is confidence in white leadership, especially if it is being applied firmly, as it is, in fact, being applied by the National Government. Past experience has taught these people that one may obtain temporary benefits in other parts of Africa, but that these were and are only of temporary nature and that one may easily be deprived of those benefits because there are no stability and constancy. For that reason these industrialists regard—I do not know whether they vote for the National Party, nor do I know whether they support the policy of the National Party—this policy of the National Party as a commercial pattern beneficial to the promotion of the economy. Sir, as soon as one has integration, however small and slight that integration may be, as soon as one integrates one’s non-Whites with a white Government, it follows as a matter of course that a measure of friction will arise and that it will undermine stability and constancy, because the tendency on the part of the non-Whites is, if they obtain a share in a white Government, to move in a direction which does not make for constancy and stability. For that reason the industrialist, the manufacturer and the economist in South Africa prefer the policy of the National Party to the policy of the United Party, and for that reason they have voted for the National Party throughout the years, knowing what the policy of the United Party has been throughout the years and knowing what the policy of the United Party still is to-day.

But you say we have no policy.

For that reason they accept the policy of the National Party as the correct one, as the policy which has promoted the economy and industries in this country. But I want to quote something else to you, Sir, and that is the following: To-day in the world economy there is a swing and a swerve to the large comprehensive undertaking, the consortium, the large company; this has penetrated from other parts of the world to South Africa. Sir, it is so that the National Party Government and we in this country have always accepted the idea of free competition. We have always accepted the idea of free supply and demand as norm and as policy. We have always accepted that only through free competition, progress and good markets and opportunities could be created. This is so, Sir, but throughout the years we in this country have had in the retail trade the pattern of the retail trader. That pattern has completely changed in South Africa to-day. It has been taken over and is being dominated in this country to-day by the chain store, the discount house, the manufacturer supplying directly to the public, etc. As far as I am concerned, it is really a pity that this has to be so as the retailer in this country has really rendered the community a major service. He is the man who is running his business in those very parts of the country where one does not find the chain stores and the large shops. Sir, he has experienced conditions there along with the community; he has done that community a service. Because he has had to help carry those people through difficult times, his entire creditworthiness has been at stake. For that reason I say it is a pity that this pattern is disappearing in this country. We know that this is a world-wide trend. In fact, it was the position in America as well. In America they realized that it would be detrimental to have this form of trade disappear. They also accepted there that it was in the interests of the welfare of a country to keep this retail trade, the retail trader, going. For that reason they passed a law in America which renders assistance to this type of trader on a relatively small scale. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Ermelo will pardon me if I do not comment on his speech. I should like to deal with this speech of his together with him in the election campaign in Ermelo later this year. But we are not concerned with the provincial council election now; we are concerned with something else now.

Sir, in the past seven or ten years many promises were made by the Government to the border areas. A great deal has been promised to the border areas in my part of the country, the areas of East London, King William’s Town, Albany and Berlin. We have heard a great deal from the Government in connection with the development of the border areas.

And also received a great deal.

Many promises, yes! We know that area has all along been the Cinderalla province of the country. It is an area with a pleasant climate and has always been attractive to tourists, the farming community, retired people and pensioners. In the past few years, however, the picture has changed considerably. When the Prime Minister visited King William’s Town in his election campaign before the past election, we heard the Prime Minister promising the people in that area virtually everything. He promised to give his support so that that area could develop industrially. We accepted it as such. We realize that there is only one solution for that area, the border area next to the Bantu reserves.

Homelands.

The hon. member says “homelands,” but Bantu reserves are not homelands at all, seeing that there are comparatively few Bantu at home There is only one solution for the problem, and this lies in the erection of large industries. We are thinking, for example, of the fourth Iscor. It is no use our talking about small industries now, because we have being doing this for years and years already. Since 1968, 18 small industries have been established. What have we solved? We find that with all the industries which have already been established there, employment has been provided to only 6,000 people. In actual fact, there are only 5,500 non-Whites working in those areas. Our problem in those areas is to find work for the unemployed. There are thousands and thousands of unemployed Bantu in those areas. In order to provide for those people in that area, we must get something large, something like a fourth Iscor. We are tired of promises and more promises; at every election more promises are made and almost nothing eventuates. In the border areas we have everything except industries. The harbour is there, and is large enough for the largest industry in the country. There is water, and then I am not talking about the disaster which occurred recently, but long before this there was already enough water. We have provided for water. In addition, we have the labour in those areas, because there are thousands and thousands of unemployed people. By unemployed people I do not mean the Whites, but the Bantu. We have everything there, and the people are not there because the Government is implementing its policy of transferring certain groups to that area so well; they are there because of natural increase. We are concerned that this Government with all its promises is not providing employment for the people. This is an enormous problem. This evening we heard about stability from the hon. member for Ermelo, and I should now like to ask the hon. member on that side what stability we have in the border areas, and I am referring to the East London/King William’s Town/ Albany complex.

Who made East London like that?

The hon. member who has so much to say there went to school in East London to an English-medium school, at that. Then he puts questions to me. I know the hon. member attended Selborne College, an English-medium school. It amazes me that he still puts such questions to me about the problems there. Earlier this evening the hon. the Minister said that there were more labour opportunities in South Africa that we can fill. This is true, and one finds this mostly in the border areas. This afternoon we heard about the Saldanha-Sishen project, where the iron ore must be transported, and that the Cabinet had decided that. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to tell us this evening where the fourth Iscor will be situated; I understand the reasons why he or the Cabinet cannot do that at this stage. However, let us start thinking this evening in the direction of establishing something large in this complex, such as a fourth Iscor. A large industry in that area will automatically … [Interjections.] … If a large industry were to be established in that area, other smaller industries and businesses would be attracted there. I want to repeat that there are thousands of unemployed non-Whites in that area. This creates enormous problems. As the saying goes, “While the black man’s stomach is full, you and I will sleep”, but heaven help us when those people start going hungry, and it will happen if this Government implements its policy. The natural increase in the population and the removal of Bantu there must be borne in mind. No provision is being made for the unemployed. This evening I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear these people in mind. It will not help us if the fourth Iscor is established at another place in four or five years’ time. That will be too late.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London (North) has complained so much about the shortcomings and deficiencies in his part of the world that I think it will be a good thing for that region to get a few good M.P.’s there. This may happen at the next election.

In his speech this afternoon the hon. the Minister mentioned, inter alia, the great service which certain industries, such as Sasol, among others, are rendering to South Africa. I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister in paying tribute to that group of able men who are employed at the factory in Sasol, and as such are directly and indirectly in the service of the Republic of South Africa. In that factory we have some of the best scientists in their field in the world. I have here in my hand a recent report on an exceptional achievement recently accomplished by those people. The report appeared in the Transvaler of 4th September, 1970, under the heading “Catalyser is worth R500,000 to Sasol”. The report reads as follows (translation)—

I therefore want to pay tribute this evening to these people, who are rendering a great service to us and to South Africa, i.e. our scientists in the employ of Sasol. It is a reassuring thought to know that if difficulties such as boycotts, etc., should arise, South Africa would to a certain extent be self-sufficient as far as its fuel supplies are concerned.

It is interesting to know that in addition to the production of fuel at Sasol, plus minus 50 different kinds of by-products are produced to-day. These by-products are so important that by this time fuel is practically no longer the main product of the plant. We have in mind, for example, the basic fertilizers, wax, etc., which are all produced from coal. My information is that there are 7,300 people attached to this organization, with the excellent labour ratio of one White to one non-White. I am told that million gallons of water are used there daily, and four million tons of coal annually.

I know that the Cabinet in its wisdom will decide when a second Sasol should be established in the interests of South Africa. Perhaps the Cabinet has already decided when and where the second Sasol will be established. If this is so, I realize that the Cabinet will later on give consideration to a third Sasol. When the Cabinet considers this, it will have to look for places where there are sufficient coal and water, things which are essential to such an industry. It will probably look for a strategic site. In other words, in my opinion it will not be wise from a strategic point of view to build the next or a third Sasol on the same site as that of the present Sasol. However, I think an important consideration must be to locate the plant where it will be within driving distance of the existing plant, so that the scientists, technicians and managerial staff employed at the present plant will be within driving distance of the new plant, and see that one can employ their valuable services there as well. At the present time, highly specialized persons such as those in the employ of Sasol are few and far between not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. Therefore I think this is an important consideration. It will be the same as a highly efficient farmer who manages two or more farms which are situated within driving distance of each other. It is also necessary that such a plant should be situated within the largest consumer area in the Republic, so that the distribution cost of the final product will not be too high. This will also make it possible for the imported fuel to be used mainly in the coastal towns and in areas close to the coastal towns, and therefore reduce the distribution cost of the imported fuel as well.

Now I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I know of an area which has some of the best coal in the country and also has the necessary water. That area is Heidelberg, Transvaal. It is situated, as I said, within driving distance of the present Sasol. It has the necessary coal and water. It is situated within the largest consumer area in the Republic, i.e. the Vaal Triangle and the Witwatersrand. I think I may say that it also has a good M.P.!

Hear, hear!

In conclusion I want to say that the town council of Heidelberg and I already had an interview in this connection with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Mr. Haak, and that he received us very well and kindly heard our representations. I want to tell the hon. Minister that I shall shortly be submitting a well motivated memorandum to him in order to explain our request to him fully.

Mr. Chairman, for the last four years at least, in this House I have made pleas on behalf of this side to the Minister concerned, the Minister of Economic Affairs, for Government action to protect our marine resources against the instrusion of foreign trawlers. I have pleaded with the Government to take the necessary action. Not only have I been constructive in my criticism, but I have also made certain proposals to the Government for their consideration. To-night I should like to direct my remarks particularly to the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs who, when he was a member of the Executive Committee in South-West Africa, had a great deal to do with the fishing industry of South-West Africa, and who, according to newspaper reports, is an authority on the fishing industry. I have pleaded first of all with the Government to consider the possibility of extending our territorial waters. At the present moment, as the Minister knows, our territorial waters are six miles in extent. Then there is a further six miles in respect of fisheries. I maintain, as I have maintained for four years, that there is no earthly reason why the Government should not claim a 12-mile territorial sea. This is in accordance with modern international practice and is borne out by reports of the conference of the International Law Commission in 1958, when it was stated that every coastal state had the right to demarcate its own coastal belt and that there was no reason why it should not proclaim sovereignty over its coastal waters to an extent not exceeding 12 miles. Since then, and in response to my pleading year after year, the previous Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Haak, said:

He continued:

Sir, I think that was an exceedingly wishy-washy attitude for the Minister to adopt speaking for the Government. There are other countries weaker than South Africa who have proclaimed a larger area of territorial sea than 12 miles and who have, by the use of their patrol boats, enforced their sovereignty over those waters.

In the second place I have appealed to the Minister and his Government to consider the proclamation of maritime conservation zones. May I expiain that the proclamation of a maritime conservation zone does not mean that it is a claim to sovereignty. It means simply that you can proclaim a maritime conservation zone beyond your territorial sea, for the purposes of having control over the right of entry by foreigners and making their entry of that maritime zone conditional upon their observation of conservation measures. There is plenty of precendent for this plea. For example, as long ago as 1945, President Truman of America said:

The President then authorized the enactment of provisions for the administration, regulation and control of the fisheries resources of, and fisheries activities in, such zones. It is not a claim to exclusive sovereignty or authority over the maritime zones. It is indeed a claim to be able to regulate the exploitation of Fisheries resources within that maritime belt. There is a more recent precedent, namely that of the Argentine. I think it was in 1967 when the Argentine unilaterally extended its maritime jurisdiction over its adjacent waters to an extent of 200 nautical miles from the coast at low tide, and within 90 days the Argentine Government was scheduled to issue permanent regulations on foreign exploitation and exploration of the sea resources within that 200 mile maritime belt. There is nothing new about this. There is no reason why South Africa cannot extend its territorial sea and why it cannot proclaim maritime zones for conservation purposes in accordance with international practice.

I want to go further to-night and suggest to the Government that it consider the possibility of extending our maritime zone to cover the continental shelf off the South African coast. I think it is generally accepted that the continental shelf off the South African coasts is approximately 70 miles in extent in the south, approximately 15 miles in the east and approximately 36 miles in the west. I would suggest to the Minister that his Department should investigate this possibility in the light of current international practice among the states of the world. Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, I have suggested from time to time that South Africa should take the lead in calling an international conference to discuss the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic Ocean around our coasts. Almost every other ocean in the world is governed by some form of international agreement or convention. In this regard one thinks of the North Pacific Agreement, the North-West Pacific, the North-West Atlantic, the North-East Atlantic and the North Sea. There are conventions or agreements amongst states as to the exploitation of the fish resources in those particular oceans. I have been supported in my pleas to the hon. Minister by the chairman of Viskor in a recent report. In Die Burger a few months ago, I think in August of this year, mention was made of an international conference that was held in Rome last year. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister if either of them will give us in this Committee details of this conference that was held in Rome last year. I should like to quote the report in Die Burger on this conference. It reads as follows—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister precisely who took part on behalf of South Africa in that conference and what was achieved by that conference? This particular report in Die Burger goes further and, I believe, in a flight of fancy says that there is a possibility of there being an international patrol service off our South African coasts, i would like to think that something like that was possible. But I do not think it is possible. I think it is this Government’s duty instead of waiting for an international patrol service, to establish an effective patrol service to protect our territorial waters and to protect any fishery zones that we either have or that we might proclaim.

I have also pleaded from time to time for the Government to institute an inquiry into the fishing industry in South Africa. In 1967 this inquiry was started. As regards the inquiry, one of its terms of reference concerned the intrusion by foreigners into our South African waters. One of the terms of reference was to establish the desirability and the nature of steps to be taken to limit the activities of foreign fishing vessels off our coasts.

I want to ask the Minister and the Deputy Minister to-night what South Africa has done to limit the intrusion of foreign trawlers in our South African waters. An interim report has been issued as regards research by that fisheries commission and a further interim report was issued by that commission concerning the parlous state of our rock lobster industry. I want to know why it is not possible for that same commission to issue an interim report and to make recommendations to the Government about steps to be taken against trespassing trawlers taking our fish. What steps has the Government taken so far? They have prohibited the use of our harbours by nations who boycott South African products. Well, I think it is singularly unlikely that a boycotting nation would use our harbours in any event. Secondly, a year or two ago they imposed higher tariffs for berthing facilities for foreigners in our harbours and transhipment charges, and after a short while there were protests from our own people and from the foreigners concerned and the tariffs were immediately reduced to what they were before. The third step they have taken was to provide a small subsidy from time to time to assist our fishing industry and in that way to assist us to compete with foreign nations. That is all. [Time expired.]

When my time expired earlier on, I was dealing with the factory ships. I want to go further and point out to the Committee that these ships are the means of destruction of the fishing industry of South-West Africa, and in my opinion—and I want to advocate this—these people have forefeited any right to be there. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to cancel their licences. It could be argued that they should be given a smaller quota, but they will not keep to that quota either. This again will mean that an expensive patrol service will have to be maintained for those ships, and they will not be able to exploit such a small quota profitably, and in my opinion this will then amount to a waste of our national assets. I also want to address a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that fishermen will be paid for the fish they catch. This is their living, and it is their right to deliver the fish they catch and to be paid for it.

I am glad the previous speaker referred to foreign ships. Now I want to point out that these foreign ships in our fishing waters in fact catch mainly trawl fish, pelagic fish. Some proof has been found that these ships do operate within the territorial waters, but the latest reports show that they observe our fishing waters as far as possible. They are very careful not to get into trouble and they very definitely have respect for the patrol service that has been established. But I want to agree with the hon. member that in this regard an extensive field is still lying fallow for us, and in pursuance of this I want to refer to our research programme. We are sorry to hear that the Benguella left the harbour of Walvis Bay yesterday. We know that the ship is experiencing staff problems, and as far as I know, one of the main causes of that at this stage is accommodation. I want to point out that this Department went over to the Republic at the time of readjustment and that in terms of the readjustment certain measures must be taken for providing the necessary accommodation, etc. Now I want to express the hope that when the necessary accommodation and staff have been found, this ship will return to its base, where there are facilities. It is my opinion that research can be done more effectively from that base.

It is also disturbing to note that, according to the present research programme, the crash programme, everything points to the fact that the fish caught from Luderitz to up a point as far as 24 hours north of Walvis Bay, come from one fish population. This simply proves that this suspicion of ours, this concern, is not unfounded. It is the same source of fish which is becoming progressively smaller. It is urgently necessary for us to get to know more about this. Our fishing research staff has done a large amount of work, especially in the Republic, and also in respect of crayfish. In South-West Africa less has been done, and we express the hope that this programme will be actively tackled, also in respect of the trawl fish there. But one of the greatest shortcomings as regards research into varieties of fish is the lack of an all-round deep sea research ship. There has been a great deal of talk about the possibility of acquiring such a ship, and only when adequate facilities exist will it be possible for our marine biologists to investigate these sources effectively so as to enable them to determine the economic value of the fishing grounds, the migratory habits of the fish, etc. It is known that in the neighbourhood of Walvis Bay we have the so-called lantern fish, a fish which in faot keeps to the middle depth. It is not a pelagic fish, nor a trawl fish. In connection with these varieties of fish nothing has been done either; no research has been done, and I want to stress the fact that in this respect we have an enormous field lying fallow. I also want to plead for these marine biologists to be afforded better opportunities for continuing their studies overseas in cooperation with other powers. I am proud to say that these marine biologists of ours make enormous contributions when they do attend international conferences. It is amazing to note what South-West Africa and South Africa have already achieved in this connection, and I am convinced that with the necessary assistance these people will ensure that we shall be able to make effective use of the rich resources along our costs, which are at present being exploited by foreign fishing fleets.

I should like to devote the time at my disposal to those hon. members who referred to our fishing industry in their speeches. This bring me, in the first place, to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He began by expressing appreciation for what is being done by Fishcor, more particularly, in regard to the development of fishing harbours along our coast. This applies also to South-West Africa, in respect of which the hon. member for Omaruru associated himself with these remarks. I think that all I can do here is to say thank you very much on behalf of the Department and especially on behalf of Fishcor for the words of appreciation expressed by these hon. members. Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg inquired as to the position at Lambert’s Bay regarding the development of the fishing harbour which is in progress there. The details which I have here reflect a decision to carry out scale tests as well as certain field work on a scheme which will be an adjunct to the existing harbour works, where, inter alia, a quay-wall for coasters has almost been completed. The difficulty at Lambert’s Bay is that there is a rocky bottom allowing a depth of only eight feet, while the larger types of fishing vessels in use today require a depth of 12 feet.

The scale tests, therefore, are in regard to works further out to sea, and includes tests on range and currents. It is hoped to begin with these tests this year and complete them next year, but then sand displacement tests will also have to be carried out. Apparently it will be some time into next year before more definite decisions can be taken. Apart from the field work which Fishcor has done, that portion of the test work done by the C.S.I.R. costs approximately R12,500. The scale tests are also aimed at reducing the problem of silting up, which may give rise to some difficulty in the possible extension of the harbour. My information is, further, that work is presently being carried out at Lambert’s Bay to open up the entrance channel and keep it open, and this work is almost 90 per cent complete. I trust this will satisfy the hon. member in regard to this matter.

Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg raised a very interesting point in regard to using the existing fishing harbours for which Fishcor is responsible, through further capital investment in order to make light sea transport, light sea traffic, possible between these harbours. This is a very interesting idea which will, of course, not fall within the aegis of this Department only, but will also bring the Department of Transport into the picture, but nevertheless is not one which I, for my part, would simply like to put aside. When we speak of sea traffic we know that the position is that the larger the vessel undertaking the transport, the more economical that transport becomes. The logical conclusion then is that the smaller the vessel, the less economical it becomes. Notwithstanding that consideration. I think it is an interesting idea if it should prove to be economical, if interest in it is there, and also if the capital outlay required to make such light sea transport possible is not too large.

Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg raised a further matter, namely the preparation of people to undertake training work in connection with the sea industry, and he mentioned such aspects as the handling of boats and the handling of implements and apparatus. The position in this regard is that some years ago Fishcor, then still under the direction of Dr. Van Bonde, made certain endeavours in this direction, but those endeavours were not a success, mainly due to a lack of interest on the part of the fishermen concerned. That was a prosperous period for the fishing industry and one can perhaps understand that to-day, when things are a bit more difficult for the fishermen and the fishing industry, there might possibly be more interest. Therefore I want to assure the hon. member that this aspect will once more be considered by the Department.

This bring me to the speech of the hon. member for Omaruru. The hon. member made a special plea—a plea which I can well understand, because I, like him, know the circumstances there—for the protection of the rich fishing resources which have really become traditional on the West Coast off South-West Africa, namely the pilchard industry. He gave reasons for his view that those resources are being damaged. He referred, inter alia, to sea birds, seals and the activities of factory ships along that coast. The problem with the factory ships is that those people have legal rights, but I do want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Department realizes that the possibility exists that if those factory ships return to the coast of South-West Africa and repeat their depredations, as happened in the past before they removed themselves, irreparable damage may possibly be done to the fishing resources of South-West Africa, from which they might not be able to recover in 15 or 20 years.

Consequently it is a very serious matter, and I can assure the hon. member that the Department is working on this matter, not only in respect of the factory ships, but also in regard to the necessity of introducing further protective measures in South-West Africa. The Department is giving attention to that as well—it will also affect the factories on land —to try to safeguard the industry. In this regard the Department is seeking the co-operation of all the industries concerned. Consultation is taking place, and at this stage to-night I can only express the hope that we will get that co-operation and that it will be possible, without the use of compulsion, to take such steps as seem advisable at the moment to try to ensure that that industry, in so far as it has been harmed, can recover.

The hon. member also referred to the damage which could possibly be caused by seals. There I want to agree with him; it is rather a problem. There is an enormous school of seals at Cape Cross. As regards the Administration of South-West Africa, the Administration, of course, has control over tourist traffic, and this has become a very important tourist attraction in South-West Africa. But consultation will also have to take place —in fact, the machinery is in motion—to see in how far it will be possible to reach an agreement to exploit this seal colony in the Cape Cross region more effectively. [Time expired.]

I listened with interest to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the speech of the hon. member for Omaruru. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister a tendency which is reflected in the reports of Fishcor in connection with shoal fish and in connection with the rock lobster industry. I want to draw his attention to the annual report of 1965. In the first instance, it is recorded in the report that anchovies made a great contribution to the shoal fish industry in that year. Then, on page 3, the report states that the Government, the Department of Commerce and Industries, agreed that all vessels licensed to catch pilchards, maasbanker and mackerel may, with effect from 1st January, 1965, also be equipped for catching anchovies. Sir, in the same year, 1965, the pilchard catch was less than in the previous year. In other words, the pilchard catches dropped from 228,000 to 132,000 tons.

Then we come to the report of the following year. This report refers to three developments; firstly, it is stated in respect of the South African shoal fish industry that anchovies were taking over from pilchards, secondly, the report refers to the appearance of a factory ship and, thirdly, to air spotting, a new development in the fishing industry. The report also referred to the intensified competition of foreigners, particularly along the West Coast. Sir, in the year 1966 the contribution made by anchovies to the total shoal fish catch of the South African fishing industry increased from 40 per cent to 46 per cent. In the following year there was a record catch of shoal fish.

The pilchard catch dropped once more, to the lowest figure recorded since the late forties. The drop was from 132,000 tons to 92,000 tons. In the report reference is made to the increasing importance of the anchovy. In the year 1967 the anchovy catch constituted more than 50 per cent of the total catch of the shoal fish industry, In South-West Africa, in the same year, 1967, the pilchard quotas were reached, but the shoals of pilchards were much farther from the coast than ever before, with the result that when the boats returned to the harbours, the pilchard catches could only be used for fish meal.

Sir, these figures which I have quoted do not include the catches or the production of the two factory ships. In the following year, in 1968, the South African shoal fish industry had a record catch in both South Africa and South-West Africa. The catch of the factory ships was bigger than the total catch of the land-based factories. Sir, what was the position in respect of the pilchard catch? In South Africa it was 118,000 tons, while the anchovy catch was 187,000 tons. In that year additional quotas were granted in South-West Africa, and they had a record year there. The point I should like to make this evening, is that the appearance of anchovies either causes the pilchards to disappear, or is the result of the disappearance of the pilchards. This is a pattern which has emerged elsewhere in the world and which is now beginning to emerge along our coasts. In the following year, in 1969, the present financial year, the pilchard catches of the South African shoal fish industry was 64,000 tons, the lowest that can be remembered since the beginning of our fishing industry. The anchovy catch was 187,000 tons. In this year’s annual report on the shoal fish industry of South-West Africa and of South Africa they are starting to talk about a crisis in the fishing industry, particularly in South-West, and I am making the assertion this evening that it is as a result of the lack of action on the part of the Government that there is a crisis in the fishing industry in South-West Africa and that the pilchard catches along the South African coast have decreased to such an extent.

Sir. I now come to the rock lobster industry. An interim renort has been issued by the present Fishing Commission. On page 3 of the report the commission states—

Sir, the report contains several paragraphs which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. On page I we read—

The next paragraph I want to quote appears on page 2—

I can continue in this way, Sir. The point I want to emphasize this evening is the fact that too many concessions, too many quotes, have been issued over the past ten years. I am now speaking of the shoal fish industry and the rock lobster industry in South Africa. It is due to the indifferent attitude of the Government that these branches of the fishing industry, the pilchard industry and the rock lobster industry, are now heading for trouble.

At this stage, and for the convenience of hon. members who raised certain points here, I should like to exchange a few ideas with them. We have heard a great deal this evening with which we agree. We have heard about the sound economy of South Africa and the strength of our monetary system, etc. We received tributes to our good officials, with which I fully agree. Two aspects were also raised here by the hon. member for Pinetown on which I agree with him. The hon. member said that we should concentrate on quality for the purposes of our exports. I do not think we can differ with him about that. Towards the end of his speech he asked me whether I thought it was a good thing that we should concentrate only on ore exports, and I want to agree with him conditionally in that respect as well. I am saying that I agree with him conditionally in that respect, while I agreed quite unconditionally with his first statement, because if one has iron ore reserves which are exhaustible, one must naturally avoid their becoming exhausted within a period of, I would say, probably hundreds of years. Therefore I agree with him in the sense that probably no country on earth has inexhaustible ore reserves. I think it is right to say that one should export ore only as far as one’s country can afford it without the least doubt; if not, I think it will be in the long term interest for the country rather to process its ore partially at some or other stage before it is exported or perhaps to process it completely, if its ore reserves are limited.

Then the hon. member asked me to express my opinion on the question of Sentak. Sir, I have here the circular which was issued. I also have here a cutting from the Rand Daily Mail as well as a cutting from another newspaper. Interestingly enough, the Rand Daily Mail’s cutting reads as follows—

Then the report continues—

Under that heading the decision of the company to which the hon. member referred, appears. Sir, this report, in which it is said “directors to be helped out”, is not quite correct, or let me rather say that it creates a wrong impression, because in the circular it is said, under the heading “Staff shares option scheme” (translation)—

Then a whole series of paragraphs, follows in which the whole scheme is set out But the words to which I want to draw attention are ‘‘the executive officials of the company”. I have been informed that not a single ordinary director benefited from this scheme—not a single ordinary director, but probably a managing director. Therefore I say that these words “directors to be helped out” create a wrong impression of the actual situation. Sir, it is not necessary to argue whether directors are included or not. I want to say to the hon. member that I cannot completely approve of a scheme such as this. In fact, I feel convinced that the directors of this company probably did not like it either. When I look at the list of directors of this company, I see in it the names of the most outstanding economists and financiers in the country. I feel convinced that they probably did not like it either. This was a situation which arose under the exceptional circumstances last year. They have decided this and I do not want to approve of it. I do not want to approve of it at all. I think that as a rule it is wrong in principle. To this extent I want to agree with the hon. member for Pinetown and also with the comments made here by the hon. member for Brakpan.

The hon. member for Pinetown put a whole series of further questions to me, but he speaks so rapidly that when he comes to the 12th question, I have hardly noted down the first question. I think the hon. member will therefore understand that I cannot reply to all his questions here. He asked whether the decision had been unanimous and whether everybody had been present. I got that far with my notes and then gave up hope. I do not know whether they were all present, nor do I know whether the decision of the directors was unanimous.

Sir, he also referred to the I.D.C. and said that the I.D.C. was not supposed to compete with the private sector. I agree with him that the composition of a State Corporation and the field which it must enter should be an economic philosophy which can be defined to a large extent. But now I would like to point out to the hon. member that these State Corporations such as Iscor, the I.D.C. and others, are composed in the same way as an ordinary company. A board of directors is appointed. All the hon. gentleman can say is that the Government is the shareholder and the Minister of Economic Affairs the representative of the shareholder in the company. But when the board of directors is formed from the best persons available in the country, and consists of directors in whom we have a very large measure of confidence, one must naturally entrust a great deal to them in the execution of their duties. Admittedly one can from time to time raise the philosophy on the part of the Government, to which I referred a moment ago. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that it is in fact taken into consideration by the Government from time to time.

The hon. member asked me whether I was satisfied with Iscor. I have no reason to be dissatisfied with Iscor. I think Iscor meets an extremely great need in South Africa. Iscor was formed in order to establish the most important steel industry in South Africa. I think it can still be stated as a fact to-day that our steel cannot be provided by private initiative, because the steel industry requires enormous capital investment. Circumstances have changed, and to a certain extent the steel industry has also come into the hands of the private sector. But hon. members will agree with me that to-day Iscor is still largely responsible for and still plays an important role in the provision of steel in South Africa. There is a shortage of steel to-day. Iscor does not produce enough. If I am correct, Iscor produces between 77 per cent and 78 per cent of the country’s steel. But the total production at the moment is not enough; indeed, we have to import steel. With the expansion which is taking place at Iscor, about which the hon. member also asked me, we expect that Iscor will again provide for the steel needs of South Africa by July next year.

The hon. member for Gardens spoke about GATT. In fact, he spoke appreciatively about the work which Mr. Steyn and Mr. Kitshoff of the two departments are doing for the advancement of the interests of South Africa in these various organizations. The hon. member asked me the reason for the increased inventory. I should just like to refer the hon. member to page 14 of the annual economic report of the Reserve Bank. I shall read a section of it; I do not want to read it all. I quote—

I do not think I can give the hon. member a better reason than what the Reserve Bank gave here.

I think this is clear. I hope it is clear to the hon. member that there was no threat on my part. I did not intend to curtail imports at this stage. I did not say anything of the kind. I merely mentioned that, unless we cut down our imports, we might find ourselves in the position as regards our trade balance that one day we cannot import the essential goods which we need for our manufacturing.

The hon. member referred to the articles mentioned under paragraph 2. I would like to tell him that the articles mentioned there are kept for statistical purposes. If in future we should find, by way of the statistics kept, that import control on these articles could be relieved without a substantial increase in imports, then we shall do so. I think this concludes the matters raised by the hon. member for Constantia. As regards the others, I think I shall discuss them at a later stage.

I wish to raise a matter which I find neither pleasant nor edifying. I do it, because I have been requested to do so. The matter concerns the question of burial societies and funeral expenses. The hon. the Minister will remember that, for the past three years, there have been discussions in regard to the question of alleged abuses in connection with burial societies. I know that the hon. the Minister’s department has conducted an investigation into this matter. I have been advised by him that, firstly, his conclusions are that burial societies are not in a strong financial position; secondly, that their return on capital investment is unfavourable; and thirdly I quote: “Allegations that burial societies are enriching themselves by exploiting the public must therefore be regarded as altogether unfounded”. I accept what the Minister says in regard to the financial status of burial societies, but I believe that their financial position cannot be considered in isolation. They form, in my opinion, part of a funeral furnishing organization. I realize too that the older type of funeral policy could be the main problem in so far as burial societies are concerned. However, I am still of the opinion that the methods adopted by some firms to minimize their loss on certain policies, are not in keeping with certain standards, which arise when death strikes and the family is plunged into grief. My main concern is that it affects the poor and the lower income groups.

I want now to advance two reasons for this. The first is that the next-of-kin are seldom aware of the terms of a burial policy, while the societies themselves are reluctant to disclose the terms. In many instances specific provision exists for cremation, but nevertheless the charge for this is included as an extra in the final account. Can the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that following upon the investigation that has been made, this type of thing has now been stamped out entirely? Secondly, grief stricken relatives recoil from querying extra charges. To do so is for them a source of extreme embarrassment and a sign of disrespect to the departed. In the process, they become the victims of pressurized salesmanship. Here I refer specifically to the selection of a coffin, for instance. Referring to the position existing in Durban comparatively recently. someone in the know said that, firstly, the prices of coffins ranged from R90 to R550 for an imported casket. He said that funeral arranging staffs are exhorted to sell the best coffins; tricks were used—such as arranging the more expensive coffins near the showroom door in such a way as to obscure the rest. This is how he sees it further—

This, Sir, is borne out by reports generally. My information is that the price of a coffin usually includes the price of services. In a question I addressed to the Minister earlier I asked him whether he was aware of any existing monopoly in the funeral business. The Minister replied in the negative. However, a fact which we cannot disregard entirely is that many of these funeral companies have in fact been taken over by a large finance organization. My information concerns an area in Johannesburg. The change in ownership took place in June, 1969. Prior to that the price of a flat lid coffin was R100. Overnight it rose to R120. The price for a wooden casket was R260 and increased overnight to R375. According to my information, information which I can substantiate, these prices do not include the cost of funeral services. It is interesting but disturbing to compare the factory price of these two coffins with the price at which they have been sold. I have the break down costs and can give them to the Minister. I was informed that the coffin sold for R120 cost the company all in all only R30, whereas the R375 coffin only cost R120. This shows a profit of between 200 per cent and 300 per cent. I want to stress that this is not the case with all funeral furnishers. I am satisfied that in certain cases abuse and possible exploitation does not exist. However, another report which comes from an entirely different source reveals that there are certain undesirable practices which do take place. From any information, it points to the fact that customers do not always receive the goods which they are led to believe they will. This also applies particularly in so far as coffins are concerned. There are many expedients and tricks of the trade which are adopted to present to the mourner a beautiful expensive-looking coffin but then it is found that the base is made of ordinary cheap material. In many oases many of the blemishes in the actual timber are covered by the skill of the artisan.

There is another aspect which I believe requires investigation. That is a factor which also affects the people who are supposed to benefit under the funeral policies. I am referring to after hour and extra charges. It is laid down apparently that where a body has to be collected after hours or when a funeral is conducted after hours, extra charges can be charged legitimately. But if one comes to examine these charges, one is led to the conclusion that financial benefit to the firm is not always passed on to the staff who are called upon to execute the after-hour formalities. Take the case of the after-hour collection of a body. The charge levy is R6.30. Normally two men are required to effect this service. My information is that if the service takes place within a 99 mile radius of the funeral parlour, each man receives R1 for his services. I am aware that these particular conditions are laid down by the Department of Labour under a wage determination. But I believe, and I have evidence to show, that there is considerable dissatisfaction on the part of the staff who are called upon to undertake this harrowing type of work. If the hon. the Minister is prepared once again to investigate some of the charges which I make, I will place the information I have at his disposal. But the hon the Minister will have to appreciate that for fear of victimization, I will have to give him the facts, but will have to exclude the names [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea must pardon me, but I shall not react to his argument, although I followed it. It is of course realized that the funeral costs to which the hon. member referred are a serious matter.

In the light of previous debates conducted here, I found it strange to notice in the course of this debate that one cardinal matter was not touched upon, i.e. the main charge against the Government that because of the policy followed by it, we will not have a sustained economic growth in South Africa. I found it very strange that the manpower shortage and the restriction on the movement of labour, etc., were not touched upon by the Opposition.

In the first place, I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the Government for the infra-structure which it has provided at Phalaborwa. We would also like to express our gratitude for the wonderful growth, development and interest which we have on the part of the industrialists there. The point I would like to make is the importance which sustained economic growth has for us in South Africa to-day. One cannot but say that it is in the interests of our continued existence for us to have sound economic growth in the future. We cannot but thank the Government for the steps which it has taken in order to stimulate exports. The Government must also be thanked for the steps taken in the Budget, those which are envisaged and those which were explained by the Minister, in order to stimulate industrial production in our country. When a country grows economically, becomes economically strong and is able to buy on a large scale from another country, it not only becomes a good client, but also an indespensable friend of that country. In the time in which we are living, a time of threatening economic boycotts against us, our best guarantee is to keep ourselves economically strong. According to the most recent figures I have seen, South Africa is Britain’s fifth most important buyer. It is the position that a country such as Britain, which has to export a very large part of its production, cannot afford to lose a good client like South Africa. But if we were economically weak and did not have great buying power, and say, for the sake of argument, we were Britain’s twentieth most important buyer, it would not lose much and would also be more inclined to boycott South Africa economically as a result of political pressure. Therefore I believe that this sound economic growth which we are having under the National Party Government, as well as the expansion of our trade connections and buying power overseas, are in fact our guarantee that our traditional trading partners will not yield to political pressure and eventually boycott us.

If we here at the southern tip of Africa look at what is going on around us, we must necessarily make the deduction that we will need more funds in future in order to safeguard ourselves. Those funds will be available only if we continue to experience strong economic growth in future. This growth is also important to us in another respect. As an hon. member rightly said, it is a fact that if your neighbours are hungry, you will not sleep peacefully. Therefore we will need a great deal of money in future, not only with a view to the development of our own Bantu territories, but possibly also for providing aid to other African states. In this way we will ensure our future here. But I find it strange that in the course of previous debates the Government was accused that our labour policy in particular would seriously prejudice the economic growth rate of this country. It has also been said that the Government subordinates economic growth to its ideological principles, such as the policy of separate development. Surely all of us in this country realize that it is absolutely essential to our continued existence that we should continue to have strong economic growth. The time has now arrived for our industrialists also to come to that very serious realization, and for them to make positive attempts to help the Government in its policy of decentralizing industry. The accusation is made against us that South Africa is the only country which places restrictions on the flow of capital and the use of manpower, etc.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.