Mr. Speaker, I wish to move—

This concerns the position of the tanker Wafra, which went aground off Cape Agulhas in the early morning of 27th February. On the 2nd March I placed an urgent question on the Question Paper and this question was answered fully and promptly by the Minister concerned some three days later. Since then a further period of seven days has elapsed without the Minister having made any further statement to this House, which is the body most concerned with this particular matter. Concern has been caused by the fact that the hon. the Minister in his broadcast statement on the matter doubted that we were sufficiently prepared to cope with the situation. Since then there has been a vast amount in the newspapers and there had been a lot of speculation, but Parliament as such has heard no more. It is quite clear that the danger of a national disaster still exists. In fact, one wonders whether it is not greater now than seven days ago despite the good news in the newspaper this afternoon to the effect that the tug has succeeded in pulling the ship through 55 degrees, although it has not yet succeeded in getting it loose.

Three major questions arise in connection with this matter. The first of these is whether we were adequately prepared to deal with a disaster of this kind; secondly, whether we have done all we could since the disaster took place; and, thirdly, what are we going to do to avoid this sort of situation in future. In regard to the first question, we have the Minister’s statement that he doubted that we were sufficiently prepared to cope with the situation although we have no details about the grounds for his feeling that we were not prepared. This has happened some four years since the Torrey Canyon disaster off the coast of Great Britain and four years since the close of the Suez Canal. The closing of the Suez Canal has brought about a vast increase in tanker traffic around our coasts and no doubt the Torrey Canyon disaster should have alerted the authorities here to the enormity of the danger of oil pollution off our coasts. Well, four years is a long time to prepare for disasters which must be regarded almost as inevitable especially if you have regard to the fact that during those four years there have been repeated crises which have drawn the attention of the public and of the authorities here to the inevitability of disaster and the gravity of the problem with which we would have to deal. I believe I am correct in stating that the tanker traffic around our coasts today is the heaviest in the world. As a matter of fact, about 20 tankers a day pass round the Cape at the present time.

What has the history been? Three years ago a French tanker of 81,000 tons, the Sivella, ran aground off Green Point and caused quite a bit of anxiety. Three months later the Esso Essen sprang a leak and spewed oil off Green Point. In June, 1968, the World Glory broke in half after an explosion some 40 miles off the coast near Durban and caused a massive oil slick which threatened the coast in that area. A few months ago we had the tanker Kazimah aground off Robben Island. Each time the question of our preparedness cropped up and it was questioned whether we are prepared to deal with oil pollution which could result from an accident of this kind. Each time the reply we received was that experience had added to the efficiency of those dealing with this matter and that it was hoped that we would be able to deal with any challenge. The matter has also been raised in this House from time to time by way of questions put by the hon. member for South Coast and by the hon. member for Green Point. As early as June, 1968, we were told that legislation was going to be introduced, it was hoped during that session. When we inquired about the stockpiling of detergents and dispersants, we were told that legislation would be introduced to deal with those problems and when we asked about the legal implications involved we were told that legislation would be forthcoming. That was in June, 1968. The matter was raised again in 1969, however without our getting any further. Here we are today, three years later and some four sessions later, with the Minister still saying that he is hoping to introduce legislation. No legislation has come forward as yet.

I know that committees have been formed to deal with this matter. I know that action committees and operational control centres have been set up at various centres and I know that some study has been undertaken, but how much we do not know. We know there has been talk of regional oil pollution control officers and oil pollution control officers. These have been spoken of but have not yet been appointed because of the danger of the expense. Other people have been asked to undertake their duties. I also know that the action committee in operation here consists of the chief engineer of the Cape Provincial Administration, of Professor Mallory, of the Department of Oceanography of the University of Cape Town. Mr. Stander, who is the chief research officer of the Division of Sea Fisheries. Mr. Venter, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Industries, Rear-Admiral Terry Lloyd of the S.A. Navy and the Port Captain, Cape Town.

I believe they have done good work and have done their very best. I know that the objects and duties which they have outlined for themselves are concerned with pollution of the sea only and pollution of the sea as well as of adjacent coastal areas. I know that the Government has undertaken the responsibility for expenditure incurred in combating pollution at sea, but that in so far as beaches are concerned a certain responsibility still rests upon the local authorities. I know it is hoped that officials of the Department of Industries will be on the scene as soon as possible to continue the conduct of operations, if necessary in co-operation with other bodies which have been mentioned. I know that the oil companies themselves are going to enter into what is known as the Tovalop Agreement, whereby they undertake responsibility for backing each other in the event of damages due to oil pollution. I know, Sir, that arrangements have been made for the storing of chemical dispersants and spraying equipment, but I do not know to what extent they were stockpiled or what spraying equipment was available. I know that the vital question of communications, which must be both rapid and effective in disasters of this kind, has been discussed at length, and I know that it was decided to use the existing facilities of what are known as coast radio stations.

I think the question that we have to ask ourselves this afternoon, Sir, is whether we have really established an adequate fire brigade to deal with this situation. I know it will cost money. I suppose every city in the world knows what it costs to maintain a fire brigade, but we also know how very important it is, and my own impression, even without the frank admission of the Minister, is that we have not yet established an adequate fire brigade to deal with the risks and the inevitable disasters which are sure to follow upon this heavy tanker traffic round our coasts at the present time. Clearly, Sir, the question of communications, oddly enough, has been a problem in dealing with the Wafra itself. The Minister mentioned it in his replies to me in the House. It seems to be a situation where communications caused a great deal of difficulty and a slowing up of the operation. We also have a statement from the owners that off the coasts of the United States of America or Great Britain a disaster of this kind would not have happened, because there would have been help available to the tanker quickly enough to have prevented it from going ashore. We hear also from a naval spokesman on this action committee that what South Africa needs is a coastguard service similar to the kind that they have in Great Britain and the United States of America. It was certainly a shock to hear how short of tug power we are in South Africa and what the delays were before tugs could become available.

I feel therefore, Sir, that in the absence of a convincing explanation from the Minister we cannot say that we have established an adequate fire brigade and that we cannot say that we are adequately prepared to deal with situations of this kind. In fact, it does seem to me that we are courting disaster in not taking further steps and taking them rapidly.

Sir, have we done all we could since this disaster took place some ten days ago? What we could do, of course, was determined by how prepared we were, and having regard to preparations or lack of them the position still seems to be a confused one and I certainly am left with certain queries in my mind. First of all, there is the question of communications. Clearly communications have been inadequate. It would seem that at times they broke down altogether. I believe there were very few walkie-talkies available which I should have thought would have been one of the first things available. I believe radio telephones have actually been borrowed from private firms, and it seems to me that we could certainly have been better prepared in that sphere than we were.

Then comes the question of the stockpiling of detergents and dispersants. It seems as though this stockpiling has been inadequate. It seems that we may need as much as 5 million gallons if the oil all leaks out, and I believe the Government is now buying detergents from no fewer than seven different companies and that the amount involved is already a very big one. I believe at one stage even transport of the detergents was held up because of the necessity of getting exemptions under the Road Transportation Act. I believe that the conveyance of dispersants to the boats doing the spraying has been slowed up because of the depots chosen to assemble the dispersants being at a considerable distance from the point where they would be used. I believe also that we are storing in depots and having detergents picked up in Cape Town which could be picked up at points closer to the scene of action and could be got there very much more quickly by road transport than by sea. I believe also that in the beginning detergents were taken out to the ships doing the spraying by helicopter, but that is no longer happening. I am also uncertain whether the best detergents and dispersants are being used.

Order! Must hon. members necessarily sit conversing aloud?

Thank you, Sir, I am worried whether the best possible dispersants are being made use of. I am informed—I am sure the Minister can tell us—that there are non-toxic dispersants available, certainly in the U.S.A. Since one knows that in matters of this kind you very often find more damage done by the detergents and the dispersants than by the oil itself, it is very important to know what the situation is in regard to a detergent of that kind, which I understand emulsifies as well as disperses. I know there are technical troubles, because some of these detergents cannot be used in water of less than 40 feet depth, but I wonder whether we have given enough attention to the possibility of destruction by burning. I believe that the Swedes carried out tests last year with a new material, I believe it is called Cabocyl ST. 20, and I understand the results were very good indeed. I believe, also, that there were reports in the Oil and Gas Journal last year about the treating of oil spills at sea and mention was made of this Swedish product and of another one, both for the controlled burning of oil at sea, and that both have been tested very successfully. I believe the Shell Company of Holland also has a method of dealing with oil slicks at sea which has resulted in their being able to sink the oil quite rapidly without damaging the marine life underneath. I ask these questions because I know that when the question of a certain fire powder which is made in Germany was raised, the Government reacted quickly and has been going into the question.

The third point that worries me is whether there were sufficient steps taken to ensure that small boats were available and collected quickly enough to do the spraying, and whether there was spraying equipment available. I believe I am correct in saying that the Caltex Company to whom the oil was to be delivered actually chartered four small boats immediately and equipped them with spraying equipment, and I believe the Fisheries Department produced three boats for that purpose, but was that enough? Was enough done, and was it done quickly enough? Is it not possible that had it been done more rapidly and more quickly far less of this oil would have reached the shore than is the situation at present?

Then there is a fourth point. Did we react quickly enough to Wafra’s May-Day signal? One knows there was a Russian ship which took her in tow, but it did not have enough power. One knows that the Pongola also took her in tow but also lacked power and was in fact, I believe, pulled backwards; and one wonders whether, if we could have reacted, or if we had had some system of reaction whereby we could have had a helicopter go out perhaps to pct a marine engineer on board, or perhaps called the Navy in, a frigate might have done the job which it was not possible for those ships to do. The position in Britain is that the Royal Navy has a duty frigate on standby which can put to sea within 30 minutes. In any disaster of this kind that frigate, within 30 minutes to an hour, is moving to the affected area at a speed of 30 to 35 knots. With that power they are even prepared to try and tow with the anchor chain, if necessary. Even if damage is done to the frigate, that would be covered by the insurance.

There is another point I want to mention. One wonders whether the Department of Industries is the right department to be handling this matter. One wonders whether the whole issue should not really be under the control of the Navy. The Navy knows about the sea. They have experience with ships. They know what can and what cannot be done. They certainly have adequate communication systems and could react quickly when required. I believe that they could co-ordinate an effort of this kind, possibly far more effectively than any civilian department. I wonder whether we should not consider the possibility of the Navy handling the whole business in matters of this kind.

I think we also want to know whether there were any legal complications in this matter. Were they a factor here, before the owner abandoned any idea of salvage? One knows the difficulties the Government is in. One cannot just take over a man’s ship, telling him that all that matters is the danger of oil pollution and that salvage does not matter, unless one has previous legislation with which to do it. I should like to be reassured by the hon. the Minister that there were no unnecessary delays here because of legal complications involved.

There is another matter which has interested me enormously, namely the question of flexible tanks. It is clear that there has been a development in the United States of America of flexible tanks which may be taken, in a collapsed condition to the site of any tanker accident, so that the oil may be pumped into the tanks and towed away. I believe that this is a development from the last World War, when certain naval boffins got the idea of sausage-shaped flexible tanks which could be collapsed and taken alongside a tanker which was in trouble. The oil could then be pumped in and they could be taken away with very little trouble at all. One wonders whether we have examined these possibilities, whether amongst our equipment there are tanks of this kind and if not, why not?

I know that the whole operation is, at the moment, at a very critical stage indeed. The weather has been wonderful, the sea has been calm, but we cannot count on that continuing indefinitely. There is a full moon coming. There is a spring tide coming and if the weather turns against us things may be very difficult indeed. I believe that the spare tanker which is coming cannot possibly reach that spot until Wednesday or Thursday at the earliest. What alternative preparations are we making, if we are not successful in having that tanker pulled off? What preparations are we making, if the weather proves to be too bad to pump the oil across? Even if pulled off, that tanker may turn turtle because of the unevenness resulting from the loss of oil from its various tanks. We also know that the pumping operation is not only extremely hazardous, but will probably be very slow indeed. Since neither electrical power nor steam power can be used, it seems that the whole pumping operation will have to be done with compressed air. We should like to know what the hon. the Minister has in view as to possible developments and the steps he is taking in order to deal with these tankers.

Before I speak of the future, I would like to pay a very sincere tribute to those of our officials involved in this calamity, not only for the courage they have shown but for the manner they have stuck to the job under very difficult circumstances.

Now, what about the future? I think there are two aspects: the one is what we are going to do about wrecks and disasters in future and the other is what, if anything, can we do to control tankers travelling around our coast? Clearly, for the control of tankers travelling around our coasts, legislation and international agreements seem to be the only weapons possible. But for wrecks and disasters we need an adequate fire brigade. No matter what we spend on it, I believe it will save us money in the end. That means we need adequate money, adequate knowledge, adequate equipment and proper co-ordination. I ask again whether the control and co-ordination of matters of this kind should not be under the Navy rather than under a civilian Department? I believe that the Navy could act with speed. They have helicopters at their disposal and proper means of communication. Provided there is adequate legislation empowering them to act, they could take steps very much more rapidly than any civilian department.

The question of adequate knowledge is something that we shall just have to give attention to. The whole world is studying this problem at the moment and there are developments from day to day. While I know that on this occasion we have had experts flown out from all over the world, the question is whether we are keeping up to date and whether we are seeing to it that we have the necessary equipment available. That necessary equipment seems to me to be dispersant stockpiles, the availability of small boats for spraying, proper spraying equipment, flexible tanks, tug power, even if it does mean tying up some capital, dispersed round our coasts, and a proper coast guard service to work hand in hand with the Navy to keep this danger away from our shores.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House of Assembly for the Swellendam constituency I am perhaps more closely involved in this disaster on the coas of Bredasdorp at Agulhas than any of the other members.

Swellendam has the distinction that the most southerly point of Africa, Agulhas, falls within this constituency. Bredasdorp, as the district in which it falls, is the most southerly district. And the small town of Agulhas is in reality situated right on the southern tip. The fact that geographically we possess this southern point is a matter of pride to us. We are not only aware of the fact that this lovely tip of Africa falls within our constituency, but we also feel that we as a community, and all bodies involved, want to strive to utilize this natural resource to the full. The tourism potential of this lovely point is already very well known. Although the publicity that Agulhas now enjoys is of a slightly negative kind, it nevertheless brings this lovely point to the fore and Agulhas enjoys more attention. The local authorities, the municipalities, the divisional council and the various associations involved, inter alia, the publicity association and the development association, are already utilizing this potential on the southern tip to the full and throwing it open to the public. This rapid development in recent years is actually characteristic of that region. The small town of Agulhas already has a village management board. Struis Bay, which lies just next to Agulhas, is also developing rapidly. Skulpiesbaai lies between these two, and building operations are taking place there at an increasing rate. And Suidersee is still in the planning stage. Electricity, water, and so on are reaching those places, and the authorities are very sympathetic to this development. This multi-million rand development on the southern tip of Africa did not take place as a result of front-page advertisements, nor did it take place because there were hon. members who sang the praises of their own localities in this House, but the southern point has the potential in itself to draw people to it. It is a lovely area with beautiful sand and fine beaches. There are lovely holiday resorts and it is a fisherman’s paradise.

Order! Yes, that is so, but it is rather off the motion.

I am coming to the motion now, Mr. Speaker. All the benefits of this coastal area have now been spoiled by the Wafra disaster. The sea and the beaches have been polluted, and our people are grieved at this. These riches have now suddenly been polluted and threatened by an oil tanker such as the Wafra. The tanker was constructed in Japan, registered in Liberia, it has a cosmopolitan crew, is American owned and was gossiped about by the United Party members. As we have learned from the newspapers, this tanker has a tonnage of between 40,000 and 70,000. Like so many ships before it, this tanker ran aground on our coast. History reveals to us, and I am referring particularly to an interesting book written by Mr. Potgieter called “Skipbreuke langs die Suid-Afrikaanse kus” (Shipwrecks along the South African Coast), that 80 per cent of the shipwrecks on this coast are caused by the fact that the ships were overloaded. And there is something else that also caused more confusion in the case of the Wafra, i.e. the strange fact that this ship was taken in tow in relatively deep water, but because the cable broke at Quoin Point the tanker moved against the strong Agulhas current, in other words upstream, until it is now lying east of Agulhas, about 20 miles further along. This strange fact is causing a lot of speculation among our people. This sea disaster has caused a tremendous amount of pollution of our coast, and there is no doubt about that. I hope that the hon. members on the United Party side, who are going to speak today, have taken the trouble to visit this coast. I hope that each of them has been there so that they could see what is really going on there. A disaster such as this simply happens because it is an accident that is beyond human control. Our people accept the fact that such a disaster, which is not the first, because so many have already taken place in the past, occurred because of circumstances beyond human control.

If there are perhaps any problems about that, and if the feeling is that the State has not done its duty in this case, I should like to refer hon. members to this fine little newspaper report that appeared this morning. The article deals with an interview conducted with Mr. J. Mayer of San Francisco. He was brought here by the Caltex company. He was not brought here by the National Government, but by a company that would like to make independent use of his services. What does this man say? He says: “One of the best things I encountered here involves people who know precisely what they want to do. Your own people have all the knowledge of oil pollution that they need. I am only here to make my experience of oil pollution in California available to them if they should need it.” But he also said: “In America the Government has now made money available for research as to how to overcome the problems involved in such a step.”

I feel that I can rightfully express my appreciation for what has been done in connection with this Wafra disaster at Aghulhas. Oil did reach the land, but up to now this has not been crude oil, merely engine oil or bunker oil. The extent of the pollution there is not very great. In fact, it is very limited. It stretches from Struis Bay past Agulhas to Die Dam, scarcely a distance of ten miles. On the contrary, I would say it is less. The sensational aspect of this pollution that has been magnified by the newspapers also led us to fear for the animal and other life at our river mouths and even further upstream. We were grateful to see for ourselves yesterday that this damage is very limited. In fact, the damage to animal and plant life in the sea is not evident on the coast. I only saw a few bluebottles that had been washed up, probably having been affected by the oil pollution.

However, we could not otherwise see anything out of the ordinary on the beach. This is notwithstanding the fact that from the smaller pools oil can be scooped up with a bucket. It is interesting to see that nature can look after itself. The marine life that can move had moved back and away from the oil that lies mainly near the beach or on it. It is remarkable to see how the marine and fish life simply continue normally just behind the waves and the oil polluted strip near the beach. It was also good to see to what extent the oil, which had washed up on a beautiful beach such as Struis Bay, had been removed. This was done in a simple but practical way, i.e. by digging a trench, simply pushing the oily sand into it and then closing it up again. We hope that this measure will prove effective. It is a relatively deep ditch. We hope that this measure was timely and effective, and that it will not have to be repeated at a later stage. We also hope that the ship will be dislodged from the bank on which it is now stuck. With all this sensation-mongering people began to throw straw into the sea. I must admit that the straw does absorb the oil reasonably well, and that a certain measure of success is achieved with this method. Oil solvents have, in my opinion, been used very judiciously. They are sprayed around the ship six miles from the coast, and this substance is not used near the coast at all.

Something else that I should like to bring to your attention is that the sea itself makes a tremendous contribution towards combating such a disaster. It is interesting to see that the oil that was washed up quite high on to the beach last week by the spring tide, and then not touched by the water again, has to a large extent already been broken up by oxidation, etc. Lower down, where at present the sea still reaches at low tide, the oil lies in thick layers. However, above this point it is already disappearing. I have the support of people who have a knowledge of the sea there, and who have an interest in the sea, for example the secretary and the chairman of the divisional council, who testified that the situation today and yesterday was very much better than it was last Monday. This is simply as a result of normal developments taking place—the sea is cleansing itself. We trust that this help we are getting from nature will also make a particular contribution towards solving this problem.

I nevertheless feel that by bringing this discussion to the fore today, the Opposition probably had something in mind. I cannot always be so sure that they really want to do a service. I do want to concede on their behalf that it does, in fact, appear to me, judging from the calm way in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put this matter, that he wanted to do the country a service in a responsible manner. But I have a suspicion that the measure of success already achieved in being able to shift the Wafra by 55 degrees, has something to do with it. I do nevertheless feel that since this sensational event is being spoken about by everybody one encounters, the Opposition has seen in this an opportunity to make a little politics. I do not begrudge them the fact. It is certainly their right. But I do feel that they should nevertheless keep slightly to their sense of proportion.

Let us speak of another small disaster, if you will permit me. There was an earthquake here a few months ago and that was a tremendously sensational event. Everyone was willing to make a contribution. Just near us here there is a much greater disaster—the South Western districts are perishing in the drought, and the disaster damage is much greater, but the United Party has never yet come to the fore and said “give a little help”.

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps, in the light of what has already happened and what may be facing the area down at Cape Agulhas, I would not be out of order and will probably be speaking for every hon. member in this House when I say that our sympathy goes out to the folk who are threatened by this catastrophe which has taken place as a result of the grounding of the Wafra. They are the people, after all, who are going to be the main sufferers if, in fact, the worst should happen.

I do not want to deal with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. He seemed to me not only not to answer what my hon. Leader had said in any way whatever, but he seemed to be belittling or trying to diminish the importance of the situation out there at the present time. My hon. Leader said that the Government had been warned. I want to make this abundantly clear. I go the whole way with my Leader when he refers to the work that has been done by the officials, year in and year out. What is lacking, has been drive and determination to get on with the job at the very top. That is the Government. The Minister must take the responsibility. But in the last resort, the Government itself must take the responsibility. It was not only the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs; it was not even this Minister; it was his predecessor during whose time the matter was before the Government repeatedly. I have a letter here from a borough council in my constituency in which they refer to correspondence that they have had with the Minister of Tourism, because they believed that he would bring pressure to bear on the Government, so that adequate measures for the protection of our coast line would be taken timeously. That was a broken reed on which to lean at a time like this. What is the position in so far as warnings are concerned? The entire position today loses its emphasis, it loses its point if out of the blue unexpectedly, without any warning a catastrophe of this nature suddenly hits South Africa. But that is not the position. We had the case of the Torrey Canyon, with which we were not directly concerned but from which we could learn a lesson. We have also had our own cases. We had the case of the World Glory up on the north coast of Zululand—46,000 tons of oil. Fortunately the winds, the tides, etc., saved our coast from disaster. Nothing was done on our side until the slick started to come down to the coast when once again the officials got stuck into it; they did a magnificent job and the winds, the tides and the currents did the rest. Let me ask once more: From the top, where was the guidance? Where was the authority? But it was not only the World Glory. I myself reported a fully loaded tanker which passed between what we call the Aimee Lykes rocks at Green Point in Natal, a loaded tanker on the inside passage. If she had touched the rocks which put the Aimee Lykes there, within two or three miles from the coast, we would have had the whole bottom ripped out from this big tanker. However, she took the chance, and what was done about it? Nothing! I went to the trouble of going back to the nearest post office and phoning the appropriate authorities in the harbour in Durban so that something could be done about it. The tanker had the whole way to travel from Green Point, from the Aliwal shoal, right into Durban, but they could not identify her. Then we had the case of the Burland, in respect of which I raised questions in this House. The Burland ran amuck in Durban harbour, loaded with oil. Yet the department did not even hold an inquiry to find out what had happened. Her steering went completely out of commission and two tugs had to keep her moving around in a big circle in the middle of Durban harbour because there was nothing that could be done to stop her. Her steering was completely out of control, locked right over. Those tugs saved us, but there was not even an inquiry; not even an inquiry. A big ship loaded with oil in the middle of Durban harbour! Then just recently, 10 days ago, we had the Daily News with the picture of a ship. An aircraft was sent out and they took her name, the Tugelaland. There it is in the paper, in the Daily News, showing an oil slick streaming away for miles behind her. It was reported, but was anything done? Nothing was done. On Thursday I flew to Durban with the plane which left here at 12.20. On the way we passed over another tanker with a slick at least a mile long just before we got to the Bluff outside Durban. It was reported, and was anything done? No, Sir! But the worst of the lot was the case of a boat the John Lyras. She was reported to be pumping oil from her bilges by a passing ship. This ship had nothing to do with South Africa; yet the foreign captain took the initiative and was even prepared to wireless to South Africa to give the name of the ship, her international identification number and reporting the fact that she was pumping oil at such and such a point of the compass and that she was throwing it into our waters. He then went on his way. And what happened? The John Lyras went into Durban harbour and stayed there for four days. Yet nothing was done. This is the type of thing that has given warnings to the Government; this is the kind of thing that has been happening. If the Minister does not know about it he ought to know about it; it is all in the papers. For three years I have been asking questions here about the steps which were being taken. You see, Sir, when we have an accident like this, when we have a catastrophe of this magnitude, what is needed is an absolutely efficient organization and speed. The entire essence of the operation is speed. That is why I go along entirely with my hon. Leader when he says “Hand this over to the Navy”. It is not because the Division of Sea Fisheries cannot act; it is not because the Department of Commerce and Industries cannot act, but the fact is they are not equipped to deal with it. And where is the law that was coming as I was promised in reply to my questions of 1968? The law was coming that session. The following year I asked questions again and was told that it would be coming that session. In 1969 it was coming and in 1970 it was still coming and today we have not got it yet.

Let me deal with the question of speed. In the case of this boat, the moment her engine-room was flooded she was out of control—she could not steer; she could not go forward nor back; she was at the mercy of the wind, of the sea and the currents. A Russian boat tried to take her in tow but if failed. Then came the Pongola and she also failed. When that ship sent out a distress signal that her engines were breaking down, she obviously could not do anything about it; she was out of control owing to the inflow of water; the engines were sunk, literally and figuratively. The very moment this ship sent out a distress signal we should have had a helicopter sent out there with a marine engineer and a scientist capable of assessing the damage of the oil spill that might take place. If the helicopter could not land on the tanker it could have landed the men there, equipped with walkie-talkies. They could then report the position exactly as they found it there. Here was a boat in the process of drifting ashore. As my hon. Leader said, after the Russian ship cast her off and she was taken in tow by the Pongola, she actually pulled the Pongola backwards as she went on the rocks. Where was the authority that could do anything about it? Various laws had to be complied with, various undertakings had to be considered, various discussions had to take place between different authorities. There was no central authority to take control and to see that things got done, the right things under the circumstances. There was no best advice except what we were getting from various officials who were doing their best from the shore; there was no proper communication and communication was vital—it was as vital to have good communication as it was to have speed. Yet this was lacking. It would not cost millions of rand to set up a system to ensure good communications to act with speed. Then there could have been a sea/air rescue boat to stand by. It might have been necessary to take the crew off the tanker. When once the Pongola gave it up a sea rescue boat was necessary because the Pongola herself could have gone on the rocks had she not been careful and it might have been necessary to save the lives of the men on her. What was necessary was a driving force, one central intelligence, one man who could take control of the situation. This is where the law comes in and this is where the Government is dilatory—wasting time year after year; failing to clothe itself with the powers to deal with the matter. Here again we have not learned the lesson of the Torrey Canyon. Do you know, Sir, that within a full week after the wreck of the Torrey Canyon the Government of Britain, the underwriters and the owners of the ship argued about the ship, for a full week, before anybody was legally entitled to get down and do something. Meanwhile the Dutch tug was trying to pull her off. But for a whole week there were arguments as to what legal rights were whose. Sir, we have got to have a law on our Statute Book making it clear as to who has got what rights in this event and these rights are going to be the rights of the Government of South Africa in the public interest. We cannot afford to have all the red tape and the messing around with discussions and consultations and all the rest of it when there is an issue at stake like the wreck of this boat. Sir, this may only be the beginning, for all that we know to the contrary. Here are any number of papers showing that the 100,000 ton tanker is just around the corner while the Japanese are now preparing plans for 500,000 ton tankers. Mr. Speaker, think of the incident referred to by my hon. Leader, of these tankers bringing the dispersant to the wreck and being held up because of the necessity to get exemption under the Road Transportation Act. When a fire engine comes into town because there is a building on fire, they do not worry about robots or whether they have a transportation certificate. It is incredible, Sir. We think it is nonsense; it is childish even to talk about things like that but why is it not equally nonsensical, where you are trying to get much needed chemical dispersant to a wreck like this, to have this kind of holdup, to stop your people from exercising the greatest amount of efficiency of which they are capable? Sir, we do not know where this thing will end. It is all very well for the hon. member for Swellendam to make light of it, but we do not know where it will end. We have not even closed the first chapter; we do not know what is going to happen. May God forbid, Sir, that this ship comes adrift and turns turtle when once they have got her off the point where she is at the present time, or something equally catastrophic. This is in the hands of Providence; it depends on the weather. That is the position that we are facing at the present time. But even as far as it has gone, Sir, what actual knowledge is in the mind of the hon. the Minister? Does he know what dispersants are necessary for the proper handling of the oil that is spilling from that tanker?

What do you suggest?

Has he had such analyses made, such experiments carried out, that he can say with certainty: “This is the dispersant to use under those circumstances or under those circumstances”? The hon. member who sat down just now distinguished between engine oil and crude oil. Fair enough, but that is not a thing that you want to argue about when you have an issue like this on hand. You have to be prepared for it. The Minister who should be controlling matters, or who should have appointed somebody who has the drive and the initiative and the imagination to deal with this matter, should have a man who is going to know the answers to these things and is able to get in touch with the finest technical, scientific and professional advice at a moment’s notice—exactly like marshalling a military operation. The very best advice should be available at once. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members over there know nothing about mounting a military operation. Their bows and arrows have got mildewed since they last used them.

Sir, you can have this kind of thing in a semi-enclosed bay or you can have it in the open sea. You can have it in shallow water or you can have it in deep water, and the treatment in every case will have to depend upon the circumstances. But the main, essential driving force behind this must be a carefully thought-out plan, tested as far as it is humanly possible in all its details, so that if this should eventuate, then plan A is put in operation immediately. If that should eventuate, then plan B is put in operation immediately. It is true that the dispersants which are being used may do far more harm than the oil itself; that, unfortunately, is perfectly true and we have no knowledge of this; we do not know exactly what is happening there, because we do not know what dispersants are being used. As my hon. Leader has pointed out there are some dispersants in respect of which the manufacturers themselves say that they must not be used in less than 40 feet of water. But, Sir, that dispersant can be put down where there is 60 or 70 feet of water. Then the wind and the tide can bring it in and it can still come on to your rocks in the shallows and on to the beach. May I say at once that they can forget about the idea that you can clean up the beach afterwards with bulldozers and what-not. Along the Natal coast today, where we have innumerable small slicks coming on to our shores, the net result is becoming a major disaster, and to try to get that slick off the top avails nothing. As the tides run and the sand sifts, you clear the top completely and two or three high-tides later, more oil comes from lower down. That oil can go five or six feet down into the sand. We have determined that with actual experiments where we have investigated and gone down into the sand that depth. We do not know what the after-effects of a catastrophe like this are likely to be. If some of those dispersants get on to the rocks, the rocks will hold no sea life, no marine life, whatsoever for possibly two or even three years hereafter. Biologically sea life will not be able to find sustenance on those rocks. It can affect fish; it can affect your crustacea; we do not know how far it can go. It can affect food chains. It can affect small plankton and small life of that kind which in turn will poison those that feed upon them and those that feed upon those and those who feed upon those. Sir, the end of a chain like that is not known to man. We are not able to fathom it. We do not know how far the damage can go.

But here we sit at the present time, in my opinion, because the Government has had warning after warning and has taken no cognizance of it. It has left its officials from time to time to do their best with completely inadequate facilities. In nothing has it been more clearly shown than it was at the meeting we had in Durban some two years ago, where time after time the officials had to say that the Minister must decide this or that. The Minister has decided nothing and we have been struck by a catastrophe. The Government has been caught, as I said, like a lot of schoolgirls running about in an aimless manner, and no doubt the officials will be the people who in the end will have to carry the responsibility, and that would be bitterly unfair. The Government itself as a whole is responsible for the fact that there is no adequate provision made for proper machinery to deal with a catastrophe of this nature.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast have spoken now, and I should like to know on what statements they rely when they say that there has in fact been a lack of action or a delay in action. The only indications to which they referred, concerned the provision of the sprays, and in this regard, I want to tell them right at the beginning that their information was totally wrong.

As usual.

Sir, we know the hon. member for South Coast. He can get as excited as a monkey in a cage when he sticks out his neck and swings his arms about, but I honestly think the hon. member should acquaint himself better with the circumstances before he speaks about a subject which rests on facts and nothing else. It is necessary for me to give a brief outline of the events, and then this House and the country may judge whether or not we have failed in any respect. I just want to mention that there is at least one person who appeared to me to take delight in this tragedy, and that is the hon. member for Yeoville. When the hon. member for Swellendam said a short while ago that the people there were disappointed about the damage to the coast, he said: “Hear, hear”. Does he enjoy it?

I do not know what you are talking about. Your case must be a very weak one for you to say such things.

On the evening of Saturday the 27th all the crew members of the Wafra had already left the boat. In this process, one person was killed and another is missing, presumably also dead. The rest of the crew were picked up only on Sunday morning. On the Saturday afternoon, my Department, the Department of Industries, was approached by an engineering firm to make the necessary arrangements for a Super Frelon to be made available for transporting a compressor to the scene for pumping air into the ship in an attempt to refloat it. As soon as that Sunday, i.e. the day after the ship had struck the reef, senior officials of my department left for the scene in the morning and returned to Cape Town only late that night. The day after that, on the Monday morning, I made it my business to accompany officials and the hon. member for Swellendam to go and have a look at what had happened. I should like to give this House an impression of what I saw there.

The oil which had leaked out during the Sunday night, was evidently drifting in the direction of the coast, and I noticed oil on the coast between Struis Bay and Agulhas and also some oil to the east of Struis Bay. The small harbour at Struis Bay, amongst others, was filled with oil. Furthermore there was an oil slick stretching in a westerly direction from the ship. It is not a good thing and of course one is concerned about it. It happened on the Monday. From that day on, the officials of my department have been on the scene virtually every day. This has been done in addition to regular flights which have been undertaken by the Maritime Command of the Air Force since 1st March in order to establish the whereabouts of the oil. On each of these occasions, professional officers of my department have gone along in order to take a look at the circumstances there. From Sunday, 28th February, the day after the stranding, sprays and equipment have been put in readiness. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for South Coast specifically to the fact that Agulhas is hundreds of miles away from Cape Town and as many hundreds of miles away from Port Elizabeth. Surely I cannot keep ships with sprays ready at Agulhas for such circumstances.

What about Mossel Bay?

The hon. member speaks as though this happens so easily. Since the occurrence of this accident, I have received ideas and advice from far and wide. If I were to make a synopsis of those ideas given to me, it would make interesting reading. I think the plans of the hon. member for South Coast are just as interesting. Men and women, old and young, have come forward with ideas, but this is not such an easy matter. Five big ships, each of which can carry 5,000 and 25,000 tons of spray, are doing the spraying. Another ship, which can carry 500 tons, will start spraying as soon as possible. As regards the spray, I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast that we have sufficient supplies to enable us to spray continuously for three weeks. We have never had any problem in regard to sprays. We have never had any problems in regard to sprays which have been analysed and examined in the laboratory of the Division of Sea Fisheries and which have been found to be the most effective in our circumstances. A senior official of my department has been stationed at Agulhas in order to act as a liaison officer and advisor. 1,800,000 litres of spray have already been prepared. I want to explain to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is not necessary for us to keep all that spray in stock. All we have to do is to keep a sufficient supply of spray in stock, so that the factories with which we have a fixed arrangement in regard to the manufacturing of sprays, may be given an opportunity of manufacturing the sprays. Since we have started using the supplies at our disposal, the factories have set about the manufacture of the spray. We have no problem at all in regard to the spray. Hon. members have kicked up a fuss about sprays, but this is the popular argument used.

Is that spray poisonous or not?

I was still coming to that. This spray is poisonous. The sprays which have been used up to now in the world, are in fact very poisonous. The statement is already being made that if the spray were to be used indiscriminately or to a large extent in shallow water, it might cause more damage than the oil pollution itself. There is talk of a new spray now, of which we have in fact obtained a small supply, and which is alleged to be not poisonous, or at least, not as poisonous as the spray we have been using to date.

I want to add to this that we have not imported any spray whatsoever. We have manufactured all the spray here in South Africa.

Where?

I am not quite sure where it is manufactured, but it is manufactured in South Africa by factories with which we have a definite arrangement. We keep supplies of the spray at Walvis Bay, Cape Town and Durban. On the occasion of the previous incident, namely that of the World Glory near Durban, we had supplies left over consisting of 350,000 litres, of which the value was R190,000. It is possible that there was some imported spray in that quantity. For the rest, the spray we use is manufactured in South Africa and we have no problems in that regard. We have 12 sets of spraying equipment which we have been held in readiness since 1968. The cost of this was R12,000. Two sets of spraying equipment of the type used on the ships for spraying, are now being manufactured according to the most modern designs.

But let me say something about the organization beforehand. There is an action committee and a service control centre at each of the following places: Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Walvis Bay. These action committees and service control centres are being administered by my Department of Industries. The task of the action committee is to investigate cases and to decide what action should be taken. The service control centres, on the other hand consist of representatives of Government Departments and local authorities who then have to implement the plan of action as decided on by the committee.

In this case, the action committee was not summond to meet at first, as the appropriate action was actually logical. Obviously—and I think we all agree with this —the first endeavour was to pull the ship from the rocks. But subsequently a meeting was held at Agulhas by the action committee, the ship-owners, the cargo-owners, engineers and other officials of our various departments. At this meeting various steps were decided on. I should like to request now that when another hon. member rises to discuss this matter, he should tell me precisely what we did not do which consequently caused a delay. Hon. members on that side of this House must not talk in broad outline and try to make political capital out of an unfortunate incident like this. They must please be specific. I am being serious now. Hon. members must please be specific and tell us what we have done wrong and what we have neglected to do.

But, as I have said, at this meeting, various steps were decided on. The first of these was that attempts were to be made to pull the tanker from the reef to a point approximately 200 miles south of Agulhas or latitude 38° south. It was suggested that a frigate should be used. But, so I have been informed, a frigate was not available at that stage. Besides, a frigate cannot be used for this purpose. The hon. the Minister of Defence will be able to tell hon. members that it cannot be done. How on earth can we use one of his frigates for undertaking towing work of this nature? It is not permitted. The second step decided on was that attempts should be made to transfer the cargo after the tanker had been pulled off the reef. If we did not succeed in pulling this tanker off the reef, attempts were to be made in any event to pump the oil over into another ship. In the meanwhile, the spraying of the area had to be continued so that we might combat the pollution of the sea as far as possible.

Other possible steps were also considered, for example, burning the oil in the ship. But it was said that that could not be effective. We imported five tons of a new product which will be used to ignite the oil on the water where thick layers of oil are found. As yet we are not sure whether it will work, but it has been considered and we shall try it. In addition, there was talk of bombarding the ship. But at that stage it was decided not to do so at all.

Since 4th March salavage attempts have been made. The owners of the ship, and these are the legal implications to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, accepted the ship as being lost. On 4th March, the master of the ship which had to pull this tanker off the reef, decided not to continue that attempt. At that stage there were negotiations to continue the work on the basis of “payment for the work”. Previously the negotiations were on a basis of “no salvaging, no payment”, or as it is called, “no cure, no pay”. On the morning of Friday, 5th March, the head office in the United States of America notified us that such an agreement could not be entered into with the salvage boat. My Department of Industries immediately had further negotiations and we entered into a contract with the salvage boat so that the work of trying to refloat this tanker could continue. The same evening, i.e. the afternoon of 5th March, when the contract was entered into, the salvage boat tried to pull the tanker off. Of course, as hon. members know, the tug has not yet succeeded in doing that. As I have said, the first accusation, and it seems to me the principal accusation levelled by the Opposition, was that there was not enough spray.

Of course not.

There may be other complaints. If the hon. member thinks I have replied adequately to this accusation, I shall be satisfied. If, on the other hand, he is telling me that what he holds against us is not an accusation, I shall be satisfied too. As I understood matters, the argument of both of them concerned the spray. If not, what else was it about? They kicked up a fuss here because we had to obtain exemption for road transport, but surely there was no delay and no trouble at all. What are they complaining about?

What has been done over the past four years?

Unfortunately my time is running out, but at this stage I just want to say that an attempt is going to be made to pump out the oil. However, I want to associate myself with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by saying that this method is an extremely dangerous and delicate operation. Everybody thinks this is the most obvious step which can be taken, i.e. to pump out the oil. Everyone says this; man, woman, child, small, old and young tell one this. However, it is an extremely difficult operation and we must prepare ourselves for possible adversities in the process. It is extremely dangerous. Furthermore, one does not always have a suitable tanker in the neighbourhood into which the oil can be pumped and there are various other problems as well.

In my short radio talk I said I doubted whether we were sufficiently equipped to be able to combat this type of problem. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was surprised about that. Now I want to ask him as Leader of the Opposition or anyone who gets up on that side, to tell me whether there is any country in the world sufficiently equipped to eliminate all damage in a case like this. What country in the world is so equipped? Do they expect us to do superhuman things when other countries, such as the United States of America, cannot? If the hon. member wants to take the trouble, he should read what appears here on page 52 of the United States News and World Report. The article is published under the title “Growing Problem of Oil spills—reasons and remedies”.

Which edition is that?

It is the edition of the 8th February, 1971. It reads as follows—

Reference is being made here to America and not to us; the wonderful America which, according to Sir De Villiers Graaff, allegedly has a solution to the problem. I proceed—

This is a problem which the world has not yet been able to combat. It is a modern problem. We can very easily purchase ships and equipment and various necessary or unnecessary remedies to the value of millions of rands, but the next case will in all probability not be similar to the present one. In that case we would have spent millions of rands on a white elephant with which we will be saddled.

I should just like to add that there are many things which can still be considered. This experience has taught us something, in the same way that previous experiences have. It has taught us something in the same way as similar experiences in the rest of the world have taught us. The Cabinet has already paid attention to the possibility that the Navy should perhaps accept the responsibility, especially in regard to the salvage work. These are matters which can be considered. I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in the laboratories of my Division of Sea Fisheries, we are keeping abreast of the new developments in the world in the field of oil pollution at sea, from day to day and from week to week. If hon. members on the opposite side want to express criticism, they must be more specific; otherwise we shall not take notice of them. Their criticism should not be couched in the terms of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who refers to the “failure on the part of the Government to take timeous and appropriate steps”.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I think it is appropriate to say that the hon. the Minister is today on record as having said that at no stage subsequent to the stranding of the Wafra has there been any shortage of dispersal chemicals. Secondly, that he said that the dispersal chemicals that were available in such great quantities were of a poisonous kind. He has not told us to what extent the chemicals that have been available since the stranding of the Wafra have in fact been used. Thirdly, he went so far as to say that it was the Government’s intention to pull the Wafra off the rocks and to tow it 200 miles out to sea where it will be disposed of one way or another. The fourth point I want to record is that he said that my leader had said that we had suggested that a frigate should be used to pull the Wafra off the rocks. We never made any such suggestion. We said that there had been a long delay from the time of the sending out of the S.O.S. to the time she had landed on the rocks and that in that time a frigate could quite easily have come from Simonstown to prevent the Wafra going onto the rocks. Then my leader and the hon. member for South Coast at no time mentioned the possibility of bombing. We on this side of the House feel in the light of the experience of other tanker wrecks and more particularly with the Torrey Canyon that bombing does more harm than good. We have never at any stage advocated this method.

The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Swellendam have said that we are trying to exact the maximum political pleasure out of this situation. I want to refer them to Die Burger of last Saturday and the correspondent Andre Rossouw who must also have been exacting the maximum political pleasure out of this situation. I say this because he said—

The fears of this side of the House are also shared by Die Burger and also by every other newspaper which has an interest in the coastal areas and knows what it is talking about in these matters. They are just as concerned about the lack of action during the past four years by this Government as we on this side of the House are.

So far are we on this side of the House from trying to make politics out of this situation and so anxious are we that the Wafra should be pulled off the rocks and that a most appalling catastrophe should be averted that it is perhaps appropriate that we should be the first to give the news to this House that in a note which has just been passed to me it is stated that the Wafra has in fact been pulled off the rocks. There is no one in this House who derives greater pleasure out of this event, if it is correct, than members on this side of the House. There is no reason for the Government to suggest that we take any pleasure out of an appalling catastrophe which could still occur and which almost certainly would have occurred had the Wafra not been pulled off the rocks. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Caledon in response to a telegram from the Publicity Association of Hermanus has had an enormous lot to do with the success of this undertaking!

I believe that at this stage it is appropriate for us to refer to a report that was tabled in this House in the middle of 1968. This was an ad hoc report by a committee presided over by Prof. Mallory and it made certain recommendations. As the hon. the Minister says that we on this side of the House have levelled very few charges against him I am going to ask him on an appropriate occasion to deal in detail with the recommendations made by that ad hoc committee, which was tabled in this House. The first recommendation was the establishment of a permanent action committee to prepare the country for emergencies and to act in the event of any major oil spill. Now that action committee, in fact, has been set up. I should like to ask in what way has the Minister prepared the country for the eventuality such as recently occurred in the stranding of the Wafra. Secondly, the committee recommended that the action committee should have made available to it funds immediately a disaster takes place, with which they could cope with the situation as they found it. The third recommendation which this committee made was that there should be established a permanent scientific and technical advisory committee, because there was a need for expert knowledge in the field of marine and fisheries biology, and a number of other very, very important aspects of recovering ships from the sea. Now I want to ask him whether that scientific and technical committee has ever been set up; if so, how often has it functioned, and will its findings be tabled in the House? It is said in this report of Prof. Mallory that it was essential to divert scientific efforts from current research projects, so that a study could be made of the short- and the long-term effect of any disaster such as the Wafra. Now I should like to ask him, where have scientists been diverted from existing scientific projects to investigate this essential matter? The report went further and suggested that State laboratories should be made available and that the universities should be consulted with a view to their undertaking special emergency studies to do with the consequences of oil pollution. The committee suggested further that there should be a set of reference stations set up all along our coasts with which to feed the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Industries with the necessary ecological information. Mr. Speaker, as you will know at the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster one of the reasons why that disaster was not of even greater magnitude than in fact it was, was because there had been special ecological surveys of the coast for some years past in the area near where the Torrey Canyon went aground.

Two special recommendations were made by this committee as well. First of all, they recommended that the Republican Government should immediately initiate research on a national basis in the field of combating oil pollution. I want to ask the Minister, where has this research taken place on a national basis and what are the results of this research? They suggested that all modern methods should be checked and verified, methods that are being dealt with and are coming to light every other day overseas. A special research unit should also be set up with a personnel of three— an organic chemist, a marine biologist and various technical assistants. I would like to ask him whether that special research unit has in fact been set up. This committee presided over by Prof. Mallory, made a specific recommendation applicable to the Government. They called on the Government to sign an international convention for the prevention of pollution at sea. This committee met and its report was tabled in this House in the middle of 1968. I would like to ask if South Africa signed the convention following the Brussels conference in 1969, or whether we again sent an observer and nothing further has been done at the international level.

The aims of any action to be taken as recommended by this committee, are clearly set out in the committee’s report. First of all. they say that the armed forces must immediately be alerted and called in to implement the necessary control measures. I would like to ask the Minister, were our armed forces in fact immediately alerted and have they been called in even at this stage? The other main objects were to salvage the ship if it is reasonably possible, to fire any escaping oil as close to the ship as possible and to use detergents where necessary. Then the report goes further and says that at local level there must be a combined organization as regards the mechanical removal of the oil that had been deposited on the seashore. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister what organization has been set up at that level to deal on a regional or a municipal basis with oil pollution on our beaches.

Lastly, for the information of the hon. the Minister, in case he has not read this report—there are some occasions when I feel that the Minister does not do his homework as well as he should—there is an appendix “A” to this report, which gives the person put in charge of the particular operation to which I have referred, a guide as to the information that should be obtained. I would like to ask the Minister whether all the information recommended in the middle of 1968 to be obtained by the Under-Secretary for Industries, has in fact been obtained and whether it is available in his department.

Now let us deal with what has actually happened on the 27th February.

I want to ask the Minister whether the armed forces were in fact alerted to control the situation, more particularly the Navy. Was the Simonstown Naval Base immediately advised of the S.O.S. sent out by the Wafra? Simonstown is very much closer to Agulhas than Cape Town. Was consideration given to the possibility of Simonstown being made the centre of operations? I would have thought that the telecommunication system of the Navy was far superior to any telecommunication system that could be established at short notice in as far off a place as Cape Agulhas with a telephone exchange only at Struisbaai. I would have thought that the facilities available at Youngsfield and at Simonstown could best be used in the situation in which the Government found itself on the morning of the 27th. The Minister has poured scorn on the suggestion that a frigate could have been used. Yet I believe that one of our frigates, capable of up to 30 knots, could have left Simonstown in the early hours of that morning and been at the Wafra well before she went aground. Instead of that the Navy, I believe, of its own initiative, and not in response to a request from the Government, sent the tug De Noorde on a lifesaving mission to the Wafra. This tug is not big enough to be able to have kept the Wafra off the rocks and furthermore she did not engage in any towing operations. She came back to Simonstown with the body of one of the crew who had drowned. Regarding the question of facilities I would like to know whether Naval ships and facilities were used. If not, why were they not used? Would they not have been able to cope with a combined operation far better than is the position at the moment under the direction of the department operating from Cape Town? Let us look at the vessels that were involved, and first of all the tugs. Priority number one is to get a stranded vessel off the rocks as soon as possible. After the S.O.S. was received, how long was it before the H. E. Bates was sent from Cape Town to Agulhas? Was a telephone call made to Pretoria first for permission for it to be sent on such a mission? As you know, Mr. Speaker, our docks and harbours fall under the control of the Administration in Pretoria. Was a deposit of R80 per hour required by the Railways to be paid by the agents of the Wafra before the H. E. Bates was sent on her way? How many hours elapsed before the H. E. Bates went to the Wafra? How long did it take her to get there? I would be surprized if she took less than 13 hours to get to the Wafra. In any event, was there any delay? I should like to quote what Mr. Averill had to say; he is an engineering authority for the company concerned. I should like to quote what he said since another American has recently, I believe yesterday, visited South Africa, was then flown over the coast in the company of the Minister and has produced such a glowing report of the state of preparedness. I should like to quote Mr. Averill. He was here a little bit longer than this gentleman who came yesterday; he said—

What about other privately-owned tugs? We had the situation on the morning of Saturday that the Baltic, the Atlantic and the Oceanic, privately-owned tugs, were in fact on duty, in two cases in the Durban area and were unable to get to the Wafra in time. There is no deep-sea tug available in Cape Town harbour of any larger size than the H. E. Bates, and the H. E. Bates, I submit, is not capable of undertaking the towing of a tanker of the size of the Wafra once she has grounded. We have had four years of warning, Sir, that this sort of catastrophe was going to happen, and if it is correct—I hope it is correct—that the Wafra is off the rocks and South Africa is saved this catastrophe, then it is through Providence and through no action on the part of this Government, since it has been perfectly obvious that it would only be a matter of time before a tanker—and in this case it is a fairly small tanker—went aground on our shores.

Sir, what other vessels were used by the Minister in this state of emergency, with the possibility of a national disaster taking place? Do you know what vessels were available? First of all, there was the Africana II, a research vessel of the Department of Fisheries. Then there was the Sadinops, also a research vessel of the Department of Fisheries, and from South-West Africa, where it was engaged on an urgent research project to do with the disappearance of the pilchards resources off the South-West African coast, came the Benguella, rushing to Agulhas. For what purposes, Sir? To spray dispersants on the sea. And then we had the Malgas and the Gamtoos, both vessels in the service of the Guano Islands. They also had to hurry to Agulhas to spray dispersant on the water. Then we had the Gemsbok, which is owned by Murray and Stewart and which was also sent to Agulhas to spray dispersant on the sea. Vessels of the Department of Fisheries were taken off their urgent research and sent to Agulhas. What about smaller naval vessels? Could they not have been inspanned; could they not have been used to perform this service? What about the detergents? The Minister has dealt with this, but I want to say this: On the day after the stranding of the Wafra, the engineer of the Provincial Administration said he hoped that there were enough dispersal chemicals available to cope with a thing like this, and an oil company official on the same day said that something like 2.6 million gallons of dispersal chemicals was necessary to cope with the disaster. The Minister says that all of this was available.

Sir, what about other methods? Have other methods that have been used with success overseas been studied; have officials been sent overseas since the Torrey Canyon to study these methods with a view to adapting them to the conditions off our coast?

What about the local authorities? Were the local authorities involved in a combined operation? Was the municipality of Hermanus consulted and told what to do? On Friday when I spoke to the mayor of Hermanus, the answer was: “We have had no communication whatsoever.” Was the mayor of Gansbaai consulted and told what to do? On Friday he also had received no information nor the mayor of Simonstown nor the mayor of Cape Town nor the mayor of Fish Hoek. On Friday when the wreck seemed to be in great danger of breaking up and a national catastrophe was facing us, the local authorities most concerned had received no information or direction whatsoever either from the provincial authorities or from the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I have not time to go into the question of our unpreparedness at international level, to which I have referred very briefly. But I have asked questions which should have been answered on Friday, questions which could easily have been answered on Friday. I have not yet received the answers. We on this side of the House feel that we are still facing the possibility of a national disaster which we hope will be averted. The man directing this operation up at the top is the Minister responsible for the Japanese jockey episode; the Minister in charge of this operation is the man responsible for the hire-purchase fiasco. [Time expired.]

If there were any doubts about the Opposition’s intention with this motion, those doubts were dispelled by the last words of the hon. member for Simonstown. I say that the purpose of this debate was political and nothing else.

Scandalous!

I want to hold it against the Opposition for trying to make political capital of a disaster such as this. In our happiness at the fact that the Wafra has been towed off the rocks, I want to congratulate the Opposition on one thing, and that is that today they achieved a world record in the sense that they were the first people in the world who saw their way clear and succeeded in making a political issue of pollution. If the hon. members of the Opposition were really in earnest, as they professed to be, about the merits of the case, why have we not in recent years had a private motion on a suitable occasion in order to lodge a plea in this connection? This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke very calmly and piously here, but have you seen what his motion looks like? He refers to the failure on the part of the Government to take timeous and appropriate steps.

I now want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this. The latest available report is that the Wafra was towed off the rocks at 3.17 p.m., and is at present moving four miles south of that position.

Look how sorry they are now. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this. If, as he and the hon. member for Simonstown implied, there was a lack of timely action, is this shifting of the Wafra then not due to the costs incurred and the efforts of officials under the control of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs? Judging by the way this debate was tackled I want to say that the hon. the Minister and his department, with the department of the hon. the Minister of Transport, deserves all the praise and full marks for the fact that the Wafra was towed off the rocks.

If one had been listening to the kinds of arguments in this debate—I must say the hon. member for Simonstown does like to pose as a great authority on the sea and on navigation, but the hon. member must do a little homework. There is no tug with the name he mentioned. I do not know what initials he used, but the tug’s name is the F. T. Bates. The hon. member did not know the ship’s name. He also asked when this tug did in fact leave Cape Town harbour. If the hon. member and other hon. members on that side, instead of listening to gossip and street-mongering when a disaster like this occurs, had rather spoken to the responsible officials sitting here today, their knowledge would have been very much better. Then they would have known that the F. T. Bates left Cape Town harbour with the minimum of delay. There are, after all, certain basic preparations that had to be carried out, and the hon. member for Simonstown’s insinuation that a phone call had to be made to Pretoria first in order to obtain permission, is also wrong. The hon. the Minister is here in Cape Town and so is the General Manager of the Railways. Permission to leave was granted to the tug immediately after the requirement of paying a deposit was met, but the hon. member is now bent on implying by way of insinuation that there was an endless delay here. I say that if the hon. members would only rather have talked to people who have knowledge of this matter, they would have known that the handling of the Wafra incident speaks volumes for South Africa’s skill and co-ordination. The hon. member himself referred to what happened in the case of the Torrey Canyon in England. The hon. member would like us to learn from them. How much floundering did not take place there in order to reach a solution!

We want to avoid that.

I agree with the hon. member that it is best to prevent a disaster, but one would not be a realist if one did not realize that a disaster is an unexpected event, and that is why it is a disaster. If a disaster occurs, one must try one’s best to restrict its damaging effects to a minimum. I say it speaks volumes for the handling of the matter by the Government and the various departments, and for the fine co-operation there was between them and with the private sector which is also involved. There are dangers involved in the matter. Further, human lives can be implicated. But through careful handling and good co-ordination the ship has now eventually been dislodged from the rocks without further loss to human life or to property.

I want to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition delivered his speech by way of a set of questions, or rather by way of suggestions. An hon. member sitting near me counted that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the words “I believe” about 30 or 40 times. The late Dr. Malan said on occasion, referring to certain journalists who were fond of using the words “I believe”, that those things they believed were the products of their own imaginations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as I said, approached the matter from the point of view of his “I believes”, and then made an allusive statement to boot. This comes from the kinds of popular stories that do the rounds when disasters occur. Have hon. members already seen what happens when there is an accident on one of our highways? As quick as a wink there is a whole crowd of people. Each individual is more curious than the next, and cleverer about what exactly happened and what precisely should be done. But on the other hand a minimum number of them are available to grant actual assistance. This is precisely the same thing one is now getting in the case of the Wafra disaster.

I hear that people at Agulhas are going around with a variety of stories about how things ought to be done, and these include better plans than those proposed by the Opposition. There is quite a bit of conjecture about what really happened, what is wrong and what was not done. There are simply no limits to it. One would be unrealistic if one did not gauge this manifestation, during a disaster, of human nature as such. That is why I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s approach to this matter, with his allusive “I believes” comes from those kinds of stories that are doing the rounds among people with little knowledge.

The shipwreck of a large oil tanker creates problems. This ship is not a very large one. Today there are many oil tankers in the world that are vastly bigger. One’s ability to control such a situation is as wide as the ocean itself. We have legislation in our country to combat the pollution of the air, of rivers and streams. The field of application of that control is so much smaller and can therefore be managed quite easily. But in the case of the ocean one is dealing with an area that is used by all seafaring countries of the world. One is then dealing with an area that is not only used by ships aimed at our own harbours in order to take on or off-load cargo here. Also, particularly since the closing of Suez, one is dealing with massive traffic, particularly that of tankers on the way to Europe around the tip of Africa. Here is a coastline of 2,000 miles and more that can be polluted in the case of some disaster or other.

With all the planning one can do—and I take it that one learns something from every incident—one still does not know precisely how and where the next disaster of this nature will occur. All one’s planning and the knowledge one has gleaned can be manifestly insufficient when a disaster takes place under totally different circumstances. This has been proved in this particular case. It was not possible to make a sudden decision about what action had to be taken after the disaster occurred. Decisions had to be changed repeatedly as circumstances, the tides, the weather and other factors changed. One has therefore learned from the circumstances of this disaster that the field one must cover is a large one. In addition, the extent of the methods one can apply in such a case is also endless.

This matter also has another aspect, i.e. that it is an international problem, and that we must seek a solution together with other seafaring countries of the world. The hon. member for Simonstown also has an easy solution for this, i.e. that we should extend our territorial waters several miles out to sea.

I did not mention that today.

I know what is going on in the hon. member’s head; that is why I say that that is his kind of solution. The hon. member believes that matters that are international in scope can be dealt with so easily by just extending our territorial waters endlessly into the sea. Has the hon. member ever thought that the extension of our territorial waters depends on recognition from other countries whose ships sail along our coasts? It also depends on our ability to enforce our authority in those territorial waters. The hon. member said here a moment ago that a frigate should have gone to the Wafra’s aid. If we wanted to enforce authority in territorial waters ranging as far as the hon. member proposed they should, we would need ten times as many naval ships as we now have. I mention this matter to point out the difference between a responsible approach to a problem situation such as this, and an opportunistic, irresponsible approach. We are dealing here with a problem that affects the entire world. I believe that the only way open to us is to continue to seek co-operation with other countries in order to take united action against the problems created by the pollution of the sea.

Since tankers are becoming increasingly bigger, and there is the danger that a single shipwreck can cause that much more damage, I think the time has come for us to resort to extreme measures to obtain the co-operation of the greatest possible number of countries in the world. I want to point out again that the development of engine trouble, as in the case of the Wafra, is a phenomenon that can occur at any time to any ship or moving vehicle. A year ago, together with a few other hon. members in the House, I had the opportunity of standing on the deck of a brand new tanker of a quarter of a million tons which had had serious engine trouble on the day it had to leave the docks for a trial run. This delayed the tanker in the docks for another week, otherwise the same thing that has now occurred could have happened there. The increase of tank ships has already resulted in several collisions in European waters. They did not strike a reef or develop engine trouble; they collided with one another, consequently causing pollution and related problems. That is why I say that this matter can only be tackled in a responsible way if we link up on an international basis with everyone who has an interest in this matter.

I surely cannot neglect, on this occasion, to refer to the fact that the ship that is now implicated is flying the Liberian flag. To be sure, it is probably not a Liberian ship, because a large number of tankers plying the ocean carry the Liberian flag. I do not think that Liberia can afford them all. Liberia is not a country that is well-disposed to South Africa. It is a country that has on occasion instituted legal proceedings against South Africa at the World Court. Liberia is one of the countries opposed in particular to the supply of naval armaments and equipment to South Africa. The irony of the matter is that the South African Navy has the task of protecting the sea route around the Cape. In my opinion the protection of the sea route around the Cape does not only mean action in the case of open hostility, but also action such as that in the present case, the saving of human lives, regardless of origins or the countries from which the people come. Apart from human lives, efforts must also be made to protect property, and apart from property, help must be given to prevent the pollution of the coasts of South Africa from taking place. Here is preeminently an occasion on which the South African Navy and the Maritime Division of the Air Force played a role. Hon. members advocated here that they should play an even greater role. I want to express the hope that incidents such as this will cause responsible bodies in countries such as Liberia to think again about their attitude to South Africa, particular as seen in the light of our specific strategic role here.

I believe that although we were incidentally engaged in this debate when news arrived that the Wafra had been towed off the rocks, thanks to planned and purposeful action on the part of the Government, this debate has nevertheless served its purpose. But it did not succeed in the negative objects that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had in mind. I also believe that it will make our population aware of the great responsibility that rests at this time on the Government of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have now heard three speakers from the Government side in this debate. I want to say immediately that nothing has yet been said by anyone of them that can dispel the apprehensions of this side of the House, the public at large and everybody who takes an interest in the welfare of the natural resources of our country, that the Government has not done anything but fail in this matter of the Wafra. It has in fact confirmed our beliefs. All the signs point to the fact that the Government, through inefficiency and lack of foresight at the top, was simply not equipped to handle the situation. Here I can say—and I say it in the most heartfelt way—that we can thank God that this ship has now been taken off the rocks.

We first listened to the hon. member for Swellendam, who started off by taking us on a sort of travelogue of his constituency. I thought it quite inappropriate. He then tried to comfort us all by telling us that the beaches yesterday were in a rather better condition than they had been last Monday. He told us that nature was helping to clean the sea or, as he put it, that the sea was beginning to clean itself.

Then we had the hon. the Minister who tried to assure us that everything possible had been done beforehand to ensure that the Government would be properly equipped to handle this sort of emergency. This hon. Minister was rather querulous when he asked us some questions. He asked, for instance, whether we felt that South Africa should be necessarily ahead of America in our techniques for combating oil pollution. He also pointed out that Agulhas was several hundred miles from Cape Town and several hundred miles from Port Elizabeth. He quoted from the United States News and World Report on the question of pollution. What the hon. the Minister did not tell us is that one of the American experts who was out here, a tanker expert, said that the Wafra need never have become stranded at all. That part he conveniently omitted to mention to this House. I think here we come to the real basis of the problem.

Then we had the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who tried to tell us that the problems were too complicated and too manifold for adequate arrangements to be made beforehand to combat manifestations of this sort. He told us about the varying tides. He told us about the variations in the weather. In fact, he told us a rather sorry tale of why this Government has dragged its heels so far. Let me put something to that hon. member and to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. We have been talking about the whole question of trying to avoid this type of stranding of a vessel and we have been talking too about trying to inhibit the consequences of any such stranding as much as possible. The field in which we should be looking to the future, and I wonder if the hon. member for Stellenbosch has heard about it, is civil defence.

No, you are telling me something new!

Well, he sounds a bit surprised, but our civil defence is something, and everybody in the House knows it, to which this Government has given considerable attention. In doing so, it has had the overall support of the Opposition. Civil defence embraces many things. For instance, it covers the ability of our country to meet natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, or anything like that. It covers the entire country and any civil defence organization to be efficient, must be in a state of general preparedness all the time. Now, the hon. member for Stellenbosch has told us that this problem was too big to tackle. If this problem was too big to tackle, then we should never have attempted civil defence. This is just an illustration of the nonsense we have heard from the Government speakers in this debate.

There are a few further points at which this House might fruitfully look. What I want to say here is by way of summary, because most of the points have been touched by speakers before me. In the first place I think it should be remembered that this is not a problem which we are tackling all of a sudden, without any warning. As my hon. Leader has said when he introduced this motion, this is something of which this Government has been forewarned for four years, ever since the closure of the Suez Canal which caused the Cape route to become progressively the busiest tanker route in the world. There is another thing which is common cause and that is that this South-Eastern Cape seaboard is one of the roughest seaboards in the world. We know well enough that any ship that gets into distress on this seaboard has very little chance of survival unless assistance can be given speedily. We have also been given adequate notice and adequate warning of what can happen when an oil tanker goes aground. The Torrey Canyon is one example which has been heavily used in this House. The hon. member for Stellenbosch asked what could be learned from the stranding of the Torrey Canyon and he pointed to the fact that the various authorities concerned stumbled around for the best part of a week before anything was done. I trust that is not what he and his Government are trying to emulate in cases of the stranding of tankers on our shores.

What evidence do we have that this Government has heeded warnings which have come from us as the Official Opposition, the public, from people who have been concerned with disasters abroad, and from the near-disasters we ourselves have had, of which my colleague the hon. member for South Coast has mentioned a few? What evidence have we that this Government has heeded these warnings and that it has tried to meet those pleas? Here I should like to say that we in the Opposition are quite convinced that the Government officials who have been concerned with this situation at first-hand have done the very best they could to warn the Government about the dangers. We feel that theirs must have been a very frustrating job indeed. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs asked what should have been done that was not done. I trust that he is not telling us that another potential disaster of this nature can happen, perhaps with a tanker three or four times the size of the Wafra, and that the Government would be as ill-equipped to tackle the occurrence as it was in this case.

What seems quite clear is that we in this country need some efficient type of service modelled on the lines of the American coast guard and that is able to take speedy and efficient action in the case of any ship in distress. It must have high-powered and fast boats which will be capable of doing what the Russian tanker and the South African coaster tried to do in the case of the Wafra but did not succeed. I would suggest here that, in spite of what the hon. member for Stellenbosch said about the costs, the potential costs to this country of any serious disaster from the stranding of an oil tanker would be far Less than the cost of steps taken to prevent it. If we were to weigh up the one against the other we would come to one conclusion and one conclusion only, namely that prevention is not only better but probably cheaper than any cures afterwards. I support my hon. Leader in suggesting that this service should perhaps be undertaken by the South African Navy. I cannot think of any agency better equipped to handle this type of situation that we have in mind speedily and well. I think our Navy would be absolutely first-class for this job if it were given the sort of support it would need to carry it out.

There are other points as well which we could consider here this afternoon. In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Stellenbosch has told us that it is virtually impossible to do advance planning for contingencies of this nature I believe that it is quite possible not only to have advance plans to ensure that we are equipped, in the first place, to handle this type of emergency from the point of view of operations at sea, but also on the lines of civil defence preparedness to have some organization geared up to handle anything which might flow from it. Having heard of some of the shortfalls in organization that we have heard of this afternoon, the shortfall in communication, the shortage of walkie-talkie sets, the fact that radio telephone equipment had to be borrowed and the fact that there was an apparent shortage of small craft to divert to the scene of the stranding, I feel that not only must we have some central authority to handle incidents such as this and that this authority must be adequately equipped but I would go so far as to say that long ago we should have had full-scale rehearsals to meet this type of contingency. There is no reason whatever, if we can have rehearsals for matters involving civil defence, why we should not have full-scale dress rehearsals for something as important as this. I suggest too that had we had such rehearsals we would have seen just how many gaps there are in our organizations for combating this type of menace. We would have seen just how far short we fell in the matter of communications. I think we would have seen just what would have been needed in the way of small boats and as regards the general question of mobility to get detergents to the scene of disaster. I think, too, that some other matters would have come to light. One of them, for instance, is the apparent lack of communication between the authorities who were handling the Wafra affair and local authorities on the coast line whose towns are likely to be most affected by the oil slick.

Even on the question of road transportation we would not have been faced with problems such as that which apparently arose over the Road Transportation Board and its licence, had we dealt with the matter beforehand. All in all, I want to say that we on this side of the House are far from satisfied that the Government in the first place did nearly enough in the way of trying to prevent this sort of occurence. I want to say, too, that we are still highly dissatisfied about the machinery that should have been set up to deal efficiently with the menaces that flowed from the stranding.

Mr. Speaker, when a country is hit by a disaster such as the one we have just experienced and a large oil tanker runs aground on the coast, it is an event that meets with very wide response, because there is a great deal of drama involved, and in this case more than one person also lost his life. We saw this in the many people who flocked to look at what had happened—perhaps out of curiosity, perhaps out of interest. Many of us in this House and outside are really concerned about the beauty of our beaches and the marine and wild life that is adversely affected by such a disaster. I now just want to tell those people who have this matter at heart that this Government is deeply in sympathy with them. This Government has done more than any previous government to protect wild life, and it took many unpopular steps. On this occasion, if it was necessary, they would have done so again.

The fact is that the Wafra ran aground at Agulhas. I now ask: Could we have prevented that ship from running aground?

Yes.

I hear the hon. member for Simonstown, who normally makes a good contribution to proceedings in this House, remarking that we could have. I do not now want to congratulate him on his knowledge of it, because he would not like that, but I want to tell him that we could do as little to prevent it as the erstwhile Government could do to prevent the outbreak of the 1918 influenza epidemic in this country. [Laughter ] Yes, hon. members are laughing at that. I want to concede that it is perhaps a far-fetched comparison. But here people also knew of a pending disaster, and they were not able to prevent it. Every day there are 20 ships of that kind around our coast. To aim at having a watchdog for each of them in order to prevent anything going wrong is something beyond our capabilities. The United Party is now “wise after the event”. Now they are able to list all the things that could have happened. If we were to do everything that was proposed here this afternoon, we would have to have an omnipotence that is actually beyond our reach. The case of the Torrey Canyon is frequently mentioned, and I want to elaborate on that a little. That ship, as we all know, ran aground on the English coast and polluted the beaches with oil. By comparison with the length of our coast that of the English coast is very short indeed. In addition they have a maritime history probably covering more than a thousand years. And yet they, with all their ships, equipment and experience could not prevent the Torrey Canyon from running aground, and after it had done so they could not, with all their knowledge and experience, prevent their beaches from being polluted, to a much greater extent than in this case of ours. However, what strikes me most forcibly is that one did not hear of Englishmen speaking ill of their Government because the ship ran aground; one does not hear the English people saying that the Government could have prevented it. However, here in South Africa we must make politics of the matter became we have an Opposition that is not big enough to rise above politics and see this thing as a national disaster that must be prevented. I wonder whether, in this respect, we could not learn a little from the English. In any case, I should like to recommend it to the Opposition.

The Minister has elaborated sufficiently on the steps taken after the ship ran aground, and I want to congratulate them on what they did to prevent this threatening disaster. The damage that we did, in fact, suffer, we could not prevent. To everyone who had a hand in the affair and contributed to freeing the ship we want to say that we are relieved about it. I do not know whether the Opposition is also glad. To look at their faces it would appear to me as if they are a little sorry that a march has been stolen on them this time. They would surely had had a fine time of it if all the oil had gushed out and our coastline was so affected that one could not even walk on the beaches. If I think of the level of debating on their side I must believe this to be the case.

I represent a constituency bordering on that of Swellendam. In my constituency there are probably more than 100 miles of the loveliest beaches and good fishing areas. A disaster would therefore most seriously affect us. Having had this disaster, we must regard it as a study case. We can now determine how we can remove oil that has washed up on to the beaches by covering it with straw and then setting the straw alight. We can see whether we achieve anything by digging ditches in the sand and trying to lead the oil off into those ditches. We can now determine the most suitable substances to spray on to the oil on the water, and in the course of time research can be undertaken to determine the substances that are the safest in order to prevent the people handling them from burning themselves. When we have made a study of this, and made a thorough study of the measures that were so efficient here and that the Opposition is actually sorry about, we shall be able to apply them very profitably to cases that are unavoidably going to take place in the future.

Why did we have to wait till now to do it?

The problem of oil pollution is, of course, a tremendous one. It is a terrible thing, as a man like Thor Heyerdahl, the North Sea explorer, saw that 40 per cent of the ocean has already been polluted by oil, and if we want a solution to this problem I think it will have to be tackled on an international scale. The countries involved in that—I want to sum it up briefly—are in the first place those who purchase the oil. It is in their interests that the oil should be delivered to them safely. In this case it is specifically tragic that the oil tanker was coming here to South Africa and that we would have used that oil in the normal course of events. Many of us would have been using that oil in our motor cars in a month or so Secondly there are the countries that sell the oil. They have just as much of an interest, because they receive the money, in ensuring that the oil is delivered safely to its destination. Thirdly there are the owners of the oil tankers If a proper investigation were to be instituted, I wonder whether we would find this ship that ran aground at Agulhas to have been seaworthy. We attach very great importance to the fact that our motor cars on our roads should be roadworthy. A while ago we had the case on the East Coast of a ship simply breaking in half, and I think the time has come for ships to have licences certifying that they are seaworthy before they take on oil or are allowed to sail round the coast.

If we examine the general statement the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in his criticism, it actually and basically amounts to three specific points. He actually did so in the form of rhetorical questions. He asked whether there were sufficient measures in readiness to combat such a problem; secondly he asked what was done in the specific cases to neutralize the effects, and thirdly what we were going to do in the future. It is very clear, in spite of the fact that several members opposite took part in this debate, that no real or fundamental criticism was actually forthcoming. I want to say at once that the hon. member for Simonstown was probably so busy tackling local authorities on Friday in order to determine whether they had been given any specific instructions, that he could not give much attention to his work here. Sir, one must immediately ask oneself whether criticism from hon. members opposite was not specifically replied to by the fact that the collective endeavours at handling this problem situation had succeeded; is the most effective reply to that criticism not specifically the fact that the endeavours at towing the Wafra from the rocks succeeded, and must we then not preferably adopt a positive standpoint by saying that we must congratulate this Department and everyone concerned with the matter on the co-ordination of their particular efforts at averting a tragedy. But, Sir, let us go further. If the hon. member for Simonstown would take the trouble to find, on his own initiative, the replies to the questions he put to the hon. the Minister, he would immediately discover that the recommendations of the ad hoc committee of Prof. Mallory, to which he referred, is not stored away somewhere on a shelf, but that consideration has been given to the recommendations and that positive steps were taken not only to implement the recommendations that could be implemented, but also to really handle the wide scope of the problem. Sir, what hon. members apparently forget is that we are a relatively small country as far as the population is concerned, but we have one of the longest coastlines, i.e. 2,000 miles, where these problems can crop up. If there is criticism about preventive steps that were not taken I would have expected hon. members opposite to make positive suggestions about how this could be done, because it is obvious, as far as this problem is concerned, that there are preventive measures that can be taken, but that subsequently, after the disaster has occurred, there are steps that must be taken to combat the situation. But what has happened in respect of the report to which the hon. member for Simonstown referred? Let me begin by saying this right away, that Mr. Stander of the Department of Sea Fisheries made a special contribution in drawing up and writing that report, something that I think should be recognized in this House. The first recommendation was to the effect that a general action committee should be inaugurated. But after discussions with Prof. Mallory, and apart from those specific recommendations, another step was taken that is more efficient, i.e. five such committees were established at five decentralized points, i.e. Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Walvis Bay. It is very clear that considering the extensiveness of the geographic area that must be served, the five action committees could work much more efficiently than one committee. The second recommendation concerned a scientific and technical research committee. It was not left at that, because once again the Department held discussions with the C.S.I.R. and also with the University of Cape Town in respect of the research that is going to take place, and the net result was that in respect of the University of Cape Town alone, an estimated R1.5 million had to be spent just to establish the institution, and that was done. The hon. member will surely understand that even if those specific recommendations were accepted, and if the arrangements could have been made with the University of Cape Town alone, it would in any case not have been possible to complete the erection of those buildings at this stage. I mention this just to point out that in this specific case the recommendations were not summarily dismissed or simply shelved. But I just want to make this specific point that although one could establish an organization, one would still be under the illusion if one thought that it is possible to patrol this 2,000 mile coast line in order to take preventive measures, and that is important. It is true that in respect of this specific case the costs of the handling, combating or prevention of further detrimental effects already costs R750,000, the spray R600,000 the tug R72,000 the incendiary material R40,000, the aircraft about R20,000 and the administrative costs of the ships about R10,000.

I want to allege, in conclusion, that in respect of what can be done with the available information, and bearing in mind that the circumstances involved in such occurrences differ from time to time, it is not possible to find a single or a simple solution. I want to point out that even big countries with tremendous capabilities, such as America, are only beginning with research at this stage. There are very clear indications that in spite of research it is never possible to prevent such occurrences by action that is identical in all circumstances. It goes without saying that what is true for the Agulhas coastline and the conditions there, is not necessarily true in respect of another place. That is why research can actually be better aimed at handling the results of such occurrences, rather than at preventing the occurrences themselves. I want to say at once that I think the hon. the Minister, his Department and the officials who were working on the project, deserve the praise of this House and of the community in general for the particularly circumspect way they handled this situation. There is much more at stake than a mere instant solution, and the fact of getting a ship off the rocks or out of the sand. That is why I want to emphasize that in this specific case we must actually extend a word of praise for the actions of this Department and its officials. I want to go further.

And thank the Minister.

Yes, I have already done that. But I am sorry that I cannot say it to the hon. member for Simonstown. Those hon. members are disposed towards exploiting problem situations in the country for a little unsavoury political publicity. And this does not only apply in respect of the Wafra. It is also true of anything that adversely affects our population. Those hon. members are even prepared to exploit the drought in order to get at the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is reprehensible that not a single hon. member who spoke said that although they did not approve of all the steps taken, they nevertheless admit that timely action was taken in this specific case. The hon. members simply do not do this. When one listens to hon. members it seems as if they basically want to suggest that along the entire 2,000 mile coastline we must have enough ships available with which to tow other ships. I just want to tell hon. members that they are now being taken in tow after the Wafra’s has been towed off the rocks.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 27 and motion lapsed.

I just have a few words to say. I have discussed this matter, as I undertook to do during the Committee Stage, with my colleagues who are concerned with these aspects. The matter has a very long history and the principles involved are not easy. The decision that has to be taken is a serious one, and in dealing with this amending legislation, I am not in a position at present to amend the principles as laid down originally or to adopt a final attitude in regard to them. The history associated with this matter is that during their regime the United Party did not see their way clear to extending these pensions to the Bantu. The matter is being reviewed, and I think that in accordance with the rules of this House, hon. members should take up the matter with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. In terms of the present division of work, he is responsible for the entire procedure. At this stage this is all I can say in this regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill Parliament is requested to vote additional funds for the services of the Republic for the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1971. In the Appropriation Act of 1970, a total amount of R2,666,234,000 was voted. Now a further R60,064,548 is being requested, namely R36,597,721 on the Revenue Account, R13,886,300 on the Loan Account, R3,558,000 on the Bantu Education Account and R6,022,527 on the South-West Africa Account.

Mr. Speaker, the total amount required is less than half the amount of R127.6 million requested in the Additional Estimates for the preceding financial year. In fact, this is the lowest amount requested in the Additional Estimates for the past few financial years, I believe, therefore, that the Government’s appeal to Government Departments to restrict departmental expenditure has had a positive result.

Of the amount of nearly R36.6 million on the Revenue Account, more than R9.5 million has to be provided for the provinces as statutory and extra-statutory subsidies. I am glad to say that the investigation into a new subsidy basis has been completed and that a White Paper in this regard will be tabled during the course of this session.

A further R4.9 million is required on Vote—Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General. Of this amount more than R4.6 million is for subsidies payable under the different drought relief schemes.

An amount of just over R4.5 million is required on Vote—Bantu Administration and Development. Nearly R3.6 million of this amount is for the South African Bantu Trust Fund.

Mr. Speaker, the House will have noted that on the Loan Account an additional amount of R13,886,300 is requested. Of this amount, R10 million is for transfer to the Railway and Harbour Fund to cover expenditure which has already been authorized by this House. The R3.25 million requested on Loan Vote—Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is in respect of loan assistance to farmers, mainly as a result of drought conditions.

An additional amount of R3,558,000 is requested on the Bantu Education Account. The amount includes nearly R1.8 million as financial assistance to University Colleges and more than R1 million as a grant-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund.

The total amount of R6,022,527 requested on the South-West Africa Account includes R3.77 million on Vote—Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Of this amount R3.22 million is in respect of subsidies payable under drought relief schemes. On Vote—Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure R1.45 million is required as loan assistance to farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House will not expect any further details at this stage. As is customary, my colleagues will be prepared during the Committee Stage to answer any questions which hon. members may want to ask. I am satisfied that the services for which these amounts are requested, are urgently required in the interest of the country.

As the hon. the Minister quite rightly says, this Bill will be further examined at the Committee Stage. I do not want to let this opportunity pass without saying how pleased we are to hear that the White Paper on the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commission Reports is at last going to be tabled. We have been asking for this for years. We hope that it will be tabled early in this session so that we can have an adequate debate on it. We approve of the Second Reading of the Bill and we will deal with the matters in detail at a later stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4:

Revenue Vote No. 5—“Transport”, R777,000:

Mr. Chairman, a committee of inquiry has been appointed to investigate the operations of the South African Road Safety Council. I was under the impression that too much money was voted for this council and that they would ask for a reduction. However, I notice in this report that an additional amount of R21,500 is voted for the South African Road Safety Council. I will be glad if the hon. the Minister would kindly explain to us what this additional amount is needed for.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the contribution to the funds of the South African Road Safety Council is being voted as a column 2 item. In this regard we are requesting that an additional amount of R21,500 be made available. The original estimate for the Road Safety Council for the year 1970-’71 was R767,900, of which amount the contribution of the Central Government came to R339,500 as against the R250,000 in the previous year. It was in fact with a view to the investigation into the activities of the council that the Treasury was not prepared to approve the original amount that was requested. However, we were faced with the problem that in the meantime provision had to be made for the essential salary increases, which are also applicable to the Road Safety Council. Secondly, after the Road Safety Council had had to give notice to quit certain buildings which were rented at 7.1 cents per square foot, they had to rent new office space at 17 cents per square foot. In other words, the status quo had to be maintained while the commission of inquiry was engaged in its task. Therefore, this is essential additional expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would be good enough to tell me how much money was lost on the Soweto service?

Mr. Chairman, I do not have separate figures for the Soweto service. I only have figures for the combined services.

Would it be possible to give us these figures at some later stage?

Yes, it is possible. I will give them during the Budget debate.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 6,—“Treasury”, R41,150:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister explain to the House how the ex gratia payment of R41,150 is made up?

Mr. Chairman, during 1969 the Durban telephone system was taken over by the Post Office at a previously agreed price of R18,800,000. It was decided that payment should be effected by means of a cash payment of R3 million and a transfer to the City Council of R15,800,000 long-term Government stock. Although negotiable, the council was precluded from disposing of the stock without the prior consent of the Treasury. During 1970-’71 authority was granted for the disposal of stock to the value of R5 million and there was a balance left of R10.8 million in Government stock, which was not negotiable at that moment. As hon. members know, since 1970 the interest rate on Government stock has increased considerably with a resultant decrease in the market value of the council’s holding of the long-term stock. Following representations by the council, the Treasury decided that, as it was the intention that the holding of Government stock should be realized in instalments, the Public Debt Commissioners should purchase the remaining long-term stock and give the council certain short-term stocks maturing over the next four years in exchange. Due to the increase in the interest pattern, however, disposing of the long-term stock would result in a capital loss of R1,432,150 which could not be borne by the Public Debt Commissioners. It was consequently decided that the Government should accept the responsibility for this loss and provision is therefore being made to refund the amount in question to the Public Debt Commissioners by means of an ex gratia payment. The whole thing boils down to this: Due to the rise in interest rates, the value of the stock that was paid for this telephone system has dropped and the long-term stock was taken over by the Public Debt Commissioners in exchange for short-term stock. The Government then decided to refund to the Public Debt Commissioners what they have lost on the long-term stock.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 8,—“Provincial Administrations”, R9 576,000:

I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has indicated that this type of increase will probably fall away with this new dispensation in the future. However, would the hon. the Minister be good enough to indicate whether this total of R7,209,000 covers all the subjects which are covered in the subheads or whether there is any particular or unusual payment which arose during this year and which has necessitated this additional amount? I ask this because the wording which is used is the normal wording which is used to cover the whole of the statutory grants to the provinces. I wonder whether there is any particular expenditure included in this amount of R7 million.

Mr. Chairman, there is no particular expenditure. These expenditures are due to the Government’s increasing salaries since the last Budget. As a result of the increase in salaries for the Government employees, all the salaries of the provincial servants also had to be increased. Not only the salaries were increased, but also the vacation savings bonuses, the pensions and all the other concessions had to be increased They are all connected to higher salaries. These are the main reasons for the increase. Apart from that there is nothing special.

Does the special amount involve the housing loan subsidies?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 10,—“Inland Revenue”, R479,771:

Mr. Chairman, I would like an explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to the two substantial amounts which fall under the subhead “Refunds and remissions of grace or favour” and which involve undistributed profits tax. In the one case an amount of R87,182 was paid out and in the other case R392,589 was refunded. I would just like the hon the Minister to give us an explanation in regard to that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown must know that these things are really involved. These figures all relate to the undistributed profit tax. The hon. member knows that certain private companies have to pay undistributed profits tax unless they declare sufficient dividends within a specified period. The specified period is usually a year, ending six months after the specified date. In these 12 months they have to pay out the dividends which they receive. Otherwise they have to pay undistributed profits tax on the dividends. It often happens as it did in these two cases, that they have paid out all their dividends they received, but they have not paid out the dividends in the specified period; they did so either just too early or too late. In these cases they paid out the dividends too early in other words, before the specified period. They have paid out their dividends, but not within the specified period. Seeing that they have complied with the spirit of the law and paid out their dividends, we feel that it was only right that the undistributed profits tax for which they became technically liable should be refunded to them. This was the case in both cases.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 14,—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, R4,941,000:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what Item P, assistance to pineapple industry, comprises.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, the reply to the question of the hon. member is as follows. During October, 1970, the Cabinet approved the rendering of financial assistance to the amount of R250,000 to producers in the Eastern Province who produced pineapples for canning, so as to enable them to continue their production. Owing to serious drought conditions over the past few years, the crops were not only smaller, but also of poorer quality, with the result that prices which factories were prepared to pay were not sufficient to cover production costs. The basis on which assistance will be rendered, is R2 per ton for the quantity delivered to canning factories between 1st September, 1969, and 31st August, 1970 The quantity of pineapples concerned is estimated to be 125,000 tons. At R2 per ton the total amount is therefore R250,000. Owing to the difficult position in which the pineapple producers found themselves as a result of the decrease in the payments to canners after the devaluation of sterling, and also owing to drought conditions which had a detrimental influence on the products, and including also stricter grading on intake by canners, assistance to the amount of R240,000 was also rendered to the industry during 1969-’70.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 15,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, R26,509:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister of Item E, ex gratia remissions and repayments of rentals for land at the P. K. le Roux Dam, an amount which totals R26,509.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to furnish the reply to this question. Various properties for the purposes of the P. K le Roux Dam were purchased by this Department. In many cases, the properties of the owners were purchased in full, that is those sections situated above the controlling line of the Department of Water Affairs and which therefore no longer comprise viable farming units. It is the policy to lease per tender, on a temporary basis, those parts which lie above the controlling line and which will therefore not be required for the dam basin as such, until such time as this land can be finally disposed of. Since tenders for the rental of this land were called for, the grazing has deteriorated drastically as a result of the persistent drought, as the hon. member of course knows. The lessees in question consequently addressed representations to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for a decrease in rentals because they were obliged to decrease the number of their stock drastically. On 21st December, 1970, the Treasury, after a submission in regard to this matter, approved of the rentals of 21 lessees being reduced by 50 per cent for the period 1st April, 1970, to 31st December, 1970, which resulted in a net loss for the State. However, this approval is subject to the prior authorization of Parliament being obtained.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 22,—“Foreign Affairs”, R135,000:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could tell us something about the item F, “Assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries”. “Assistance” to foreign countries is understandable as an item stated in those terms. Perhaps he could tell us which countries are involved. I wonder whether he could perhaps clarify “cooperation with foreign countries” and tell us what that involves. Does it mean technical advisers on loan, or what? If so, what fields and what countries are involved?

Mr. Chairman, this additional expenditure was primarily the result of events last year in Lesotho. It was then deemed advisable that South African officials who were working in Lesotho and who had been seconded to the Government of Lesotho, would with their families go and stay outside Lesotho temporarily. This of course gave rise to additional expenditure. Over and above this expenditure, there was also other technical assistance to a small amount which was not foreseen and for which provision had to be made in these Additional Estimates. The hon. member will realize that when an amount such as this is estimated, it consists mostly of approximations. The fact that more was requested than was estimated, is in fact encouraging. But it is very difficult to give details of the countries under this particular item.

The hon. the Minister has not dealt with the question asked by the member for Wynberg in connection with the meaning of “co-operation” when applied to financial expenditure. How do you vote funds for “co-operation”, as distinct from “assistance”. You can vote money for “assistance” but how do you vote money for “co-operation”? What is the “co-operation”?

Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying that rendering assistance is a form of co-operation.

Yes. We are asked to do two things. We are asked to vote R115,000 for “assistance to” and “co-operation with”. Now, we understand the “assistance to”. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what we are voting for as regards “cooperation with foreign countries” in terms of money?

Mr. Chairman, the seconded officials working in Lesotho for whose special accommodation we had to make provision were co-operating with and rendering assistance to Lesotho on behalf of the Government of the Republic of South Africa That is why this title has been given to the particular subhead. I think it is very clear and that it goes without saying.

Are these seconded staff?

Yes, these are seconded staff who are the instruments with which the co-operation between South Africa and one of our neighbouring states is being carried out and applied in practice.

Mr. Chairman, could we know what the reason is for the increase of R14,000 to the United Nations?

Mr. Chairman, the amount which South Africa contributes to the U.N.O., as it appears annually in the Estimates, is based on an approximation. The final figure is only worked out much later in the year. I must point out that the U.N.O. also has an additional appropriation The original figure is therefore an estimate every year. In this particular case the estimate was R14,000 too little, taking into account the amount withheld by the Government. We refuse, for example, to support certain items financially. There is the expenditure incurred at the time in regard to the Congo, the so-called “bond issue”. Then we also refused to contribute our pro rata estimated share to the costs incurred by excessive visits to Africa by subcommittees of the U.N.O. and expenditure incurred by the Public Information Office of U.N.O., which distributes propaganda against South Africa.

Reverting to the question of assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries, can we be told how much was actual assistance and how much was for co-operation?

It is impossible for me to answer that question. If the hon. member would be more specific, I could try to answer his question.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 23,—“Labour,” R75,000:

Mr. Chairman, I realize that this is a very important service. May I know what this R75,000 represents?

This R75,000 is for the subsidization of workshops for the blind, and represents the increased allowances given to the Care of the Blind as well as to the instructors. As far as the allowance for the blind is concerned, the position is that it was last determined in 1950. We have not received any representations since then, but in 1969 the Council for the Care of the Blind requested an increase in the allowances payable to the blind workers in the existing eight factories. We then submitted it to the Treasury and the Treasury agreed on 28th April, 1970, that these allowances could be increased. Then it also represents salary increases to the instructors. The salaries of the instructors were last increased in 1966, and here, too, it was felt that it would be appropriate to increase their salaries. Then there is in addition a third group that received an increase, and this is the ordinary non-classified worker at such a factory, workers such as artisans, truck drivers and casual labourers. They last received an increase in 1950. The amount which is being requested here is in respect of salary increases in these three groups.

I note that this item is described in English as “sheltered employment services for handicapped persons”, while the Afrikaans reads “beskutte arbeidsdienste vir afwykende persone”. I wonder whether it is not an unfortunate translation to translate “handicapped persons” as “afwykende persone”?

No, that is the accepted term. The term “afwykende persoon” also includes a person who has a physical defect, such as a lame arm, for example. This is the philological description for that. I really think the hon. member should address these representations to the philologists and not to me.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 26,—“Government Printing Works,” R528,000:

The report of the Auditor-General for the year 1968-’69 states that the stores of the Government Printer were housed under such unsatisfactory conditions that proper supervision could not be exercised over them, and in view of this I would like the hon. the Minister to assure us that that position has been improved and that the amount of R324,500 required for extra stores is required in respect of stores that are actually going to be used in the printing works and not stores that have been wasted on account of poor supervision.

I do not know why the hon. member is asking that question. I can explain what the amount of R324,500 is required for. It consists of various items. This amount is required as a result of the increase in the costs of printing materials, particularly paper supplied by S.A. Pulp and Paper Industries in terms of a new contract which came into operation on 1st April of last year. Secondly, there is an amount of R40,000 which is attributable to the increase in the cost of paper and printing materials purchased on tender. In other words, this expenditure has no bearing on the question put by the hon. member.

Will the hon. the Minister be good enough to explain the additional amount of R9,000 to be voted for subsistence and transport?

This amount of R9,000 actually consists of a few items. There is, firstly, an increase of R6,000 as a result of official overseas visits by the Assistant Works Manager and two foremen to make a study of a new stamp printing machine. Ministerial approval was obtained for that. Then there is an increase of R5,000 consisting, in the first place, of an increase in the rate payable for Government motor vehicle transport; Treasury approval was obtained for this. A further reason for the increase is the fact that mass consignments of printed materials consigned per rail to the post office stores and other State departments, which was previously collected by the South African Railways at the Government Printing Works, was, with effect from 1st July, 1970, transported per motor truck to Pretoria environs, and the other ordinary consignments, the volume of which is too small to be fetched en masse by the Railways at the Government Printing Works, are consequently also transported in this way to the goods shed at Visagiekraal. Then there is an item which amounts to a decrease as a result of an over-estimate in the deliveries of printed material and paper to the post office store at Koedoespoort. There was an overestimate of R2,000. This, then, is the total of R9,000.

Reverting to item F. the hon. the Minister has told us that this represents increased costs of printing materials bought from S.A. Pulp and Printing Industries mainly. Can he give us the assurance that these materials are not going to be damaged through inadequate housing?

Order!

With respect, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Constantia, started by saying that he did not understand why his question was put in this way.

Order! The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the increase.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, arising out of the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue the reply given by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? With respect, this Committee is now being asked to vote this money for the purpose of these supplies, and if the Committee is not satisfied that these supplies are going to be adequately protected, in other words, if the Committee thinks that this money is going to be wasted, then it is the duty of this Committee to deny the hon. the Deputy Minister the right to spend that money. That is the point that I am taking.

Move for a reduction.

The hon. member may continue.

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain his reply to the hon. member for Constantia when he asked why this question was being asked. I do not think I need repeat the argument, Sir. You have heard it and the hon. the Deputy Minister has heard it on the point of order, but is the hon. the Deputy Minister satisfied that he is going to be able to store these supplies adequately and that there are not going to be further losses to the Government?

I have nothing more to say to the hon. member at this stage except that this matter has been gone into thoroughly. If I can obtain any details in order to give him a definite reply, I shall do so. Otherwise it will have to be discussed under the Vote. But in the meantime I can tell him that arising out of the report of the Committee on Public Accounts last year, steps have already been taken to ensure better maintenance and better housing of these materials.

Why did you not say so in the first place? [Interjections.]

Could the Deputy Minister tell us something about item D, the increase of R120,000 for printing, stationery, advertisements and publications?

Item D also consists of quite a number of items which I should like to explain. There is an item of R57,500, and this is as a result of an increase in the printing costs, mainly due to the increasing costs of printing materials, particularly paper supplied by the same company previously mentioned, Sappi, in terms of the contract which came into operation with effect from 1st April, 1970. Then there is an increase of R500 as a result of the urgent necessity to advertise the vacancies for perforating machine operators in order to cope with the hiatus caused by the resignation of artisans in the setting works division. Then there are two items which jointly comprise R62,000. The first of those items is the increase in printing costs as a result of salary increases. The hon. member knows that with effect from 1st January, 1971, there was an increase of salaries of public servants. Then there was, in terms of a new industrial agreement for printers in the newspaper industry, another increase as from 1st January, 1971. Then there was an increase in the weekly bonus payable to factory staff, for which Treasury authorization was obtained on 10th December, 1970. I have already mentioned to you the salary increases of public servants. In addition there was the increase in costs of the Gazette printed on contract with effect as from 1st January, 1971, and this all together represents an amount of R62,000. The total is R120,000,

Could the hon. the diffident Deputy Minister explain what paper is then charged under head D, which makes up the R57,000 which he mentioned, and what paper is accounted for under head F, relating to printing paper and material? [Interjection.] We are being asked to vote moneys for two separate amounts here, under separate headings, both in respect of paper supplied by the same firm. Now whatever the hon. the Minister of Sport may have to say about it, I am addressing the hon. the Minister in charge in the hope that I might get an intelligent answer from him, which I know I would not get from the Minister of Sport.

I do not know whether I would be able to describe the various types of paper, but this is of course the ordinary stationery under subhead E while he can clearly see that subhead F relates to material, supplies, etc.

That is not what we have been told. The Deputy Minister said that R57,000 of the R120,000 was the increase in printing costs. Then he quoted paper from Sappi and said: “Net soos ons onder die vorige hoof gehad het”. He quoted the same sort of paper. He talked about printing costs and paper from Sappi.

The hon. member is not understanding me correctly. I said as we had heard before, there was another contract. That is what I meant. I did not mean it was the same paper.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 27,—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R4,531,000:

I would like to know from the Minister why there is such a big payment under H in respect of ex gratia assistance to Bantu. Where do the extra needy Bantu come from? Also, why is there such a big amount under N for grants-in-aid for the S.A. Bantu Trust? Is that for the anticipated purchase of land?

As far as subhead H is concerned, it relates to a new approach to drawing up the Estimates. I can furnish the details thus. In drawing up the draft estimates for 1970-’71, during October 1969, the number of pensioners for the four reconstituted territorial authorities which would, on 1st April, 1970, convert to the new financing pattern, and the remaining number of non-activated authorities in White areas, had to be determined, so that the necessary division of the financial provision for this service between subhead H and subhead N could be made. At that stage proper statistics were not available. Owing to a lack of statistics, it was not possible to make an accurate division between these two heads, and it subsequently appeared that the amount requested under subhead H was R500,000 too little, while a corresponding excessive amount was requested under subhead N. However, the provision under the two subheads in question was pruned to an amount of R500,000 by the Department of Finance, which brought the defacit under subhead H up to R1 million. In view of the fact that the payment of benefits under the subhead takes place on a statutory basis, it was not possible to apply effective economizing measures, and that is why it is necessary to classify this amount of R904,000, where the original estimate was for R1 million, just the other way around, and this R904,000, is now being requested. The hon. member will realize that no economizing is possible with ex gratia assistance and pensions which have to be paid if these people qualify. That is as far as subhead H is concerned.

At the same time the next point was raised, and I shall explain that as well. The amount involved here is R3,595,000. There was a new approach here too, and in this case the position is that the Department of Health is now attending to health services on a contractual basis for the Department of Bantu Administration. Previously this was done by the Department of Health and by the four provinces, and each played a part in these health services. Provision was initially made, but it was difficult to determine this precisely for the estimate because these different bodies do not have accurate statistics. In this way provision was made for R24 million. Subsequently it appeared that other inevitable costs had also been incurred, which it was not possible to foresee when the estimate was being drawn up.

I just want to mention a few of them so that the hon. member can see what it is all about. The first is the question of salary improvements for medical staff. With effect from 1st April, 1970, increases were granted to non-White staff and the general salary adjustments of White and non-White staff came into operation with effect from 1st January, 1971. Then there are amounts which have to be included which I should also like to elucidate. There is the vacation savings bonus which now accrues to certain numbers of Bantu staff, which was not previously paid. There is the creation of more posts in the establishment of the Department of Health, for which no provision was made. It was not possible to foresee that the Department of Health, with the takeover of this service, was going to require that extra staff, and it was not budgeted for. There was an expansion of the subsidy scheme whereby skimmed milk powder was supplied to Bantu authorities to combat nutritional deficiency diseases. With the takeover of health services by the South African Bantu Trust, the basis of the subsidization of mission hospitals was changed. A new basis now applies in that regard. They are now being financed according to the difference between revenue and expenditure. This has necessitated a considerable greater appropriation. The same also applies in regard to the combating of tuberculosis. The general expenditure of the revenue Vote “Health” had to be divided between the Department of Health and the S.A. Bantu Trust. The general expenditure and specific expenditure of the Trust Fund had to be sorted out, and each had to receive their own portion. It has now become apparent that provision for certain services under the subhead of the Revenue Vote “Health” was erroneously made, with the result that a saving of approximately R1 million can be expected under the latter subhead with a corresponding deficit in the South African Bantu Trust fund.

An error therefore of R1 million?

No, it is not really an error. It was requested under the wrong head. It was requested under the head “Health” instead of under the head “South African Bantu Trust”. We could not at that stage say precisely which amounts which were being spent in respect of tuberculosis had to be supplied out of the South African Bantu Trust.

As in the case of tuberculosis, we have to a great extent the same problem in regard to contagious diseases. The Bantu Trust Fund must now pay, while the Department of Health and other Departments previously paid the overall amount. Now the Trust had to obtain proper statistics from each one. However, these statistics were not available. The provision which was made, appeared to be insufficient. An additional amount now has to be requested. These are all the points which relate to the amount of R3,595,000.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister furnish the figure that will be set aside for the purchase and distribution of food to combat nutritional diseases?

I merely said that there was an increase. I do not have the precise amount for the distribution of milk powder for that particular service.

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the expenditure of R3 million was mainly due to the fact that the Department of Health was taking over Health Services? For what period is this? Is it from April last year?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28,—“Bantu Education: Special Education and Educational Services: Eastern Caprivi Zipfel Area”, R3,000, “Bantu Education,” R3,558,000 (Schedule 3):

This is a big amount, namely over R3½ million. Could the hon. the Minister tell us why the original estimate was so far out?

The position here is as follows. There are various subheads under which the amount of R3½ million is being requested. The first is subhead A—salaries, wages and allowances, R94,000. This increase is attributable quite simply to the adjustment in salaries of Bantu teachers with effect from 1st April, 1970. It also includes the payment of vacation savings bonuses to Bantu employees, in terms of Public Service Notice No. 5/6/5 of 13th January, 1971. It is therefore merely a consequential expenditure, about which nothing can be done.

In regard to subhead E—subsidies, R176,000, the explanation is exactly the same. An additional amount was requested in respect of salary adjustments for Bantu teachers, with effect from 1st April, 1970, and 1st January, 1971, as well as vacation savings bonuses payable in terms of Public Service Notice No. 5/6/5 of 13th January, 1971.

Then there is subhead M—financial assistance to university colleges, R423,000. I may as well furnish the hon. member with full details in this regard. It is for additional funds required by the universities, as follows: the University of Fort Hare, R237,000. I shall explain in a moment what this is for. The University of Zululand receives R98,000. This I shall also explain. Then, the University of the North receives R88,000. This then gives a total of R423,000 for subhead M. The R237,000 for Fort Hare comprises the following items. Firstly, there is flood damage, R6,500. The flood damage was as a result of the recent floods. Secondly, there is salaries R149,000. These increased salaries were payable to teaching staff as from 1st April, 1970, in terms of Public Service Notice No. 169G-22 of 1st October, 1969, and Treasury approval dated 23rd February, 1970. This was estimated at R149,000. Is that what the hon. member wanted?

Yes, but the Department is giving a lot.

Yes, but we are compelled to do so. In addition there is subsistence and transport —this is still under Fort Hare—R17,000. The explanation for this is that owing to the isolated situation of the University, the transportation of students creates a problem. The University has only one old and unreliable vehicle, which has been in use for a long time, at its disposal. This has already given rise to displeasure among the students. It was essential that the bus be replaced. This represents the amount of R17,000. Then there is printing work, R11,500. As a result of a large number of vacancies and the creation of new posts which had to be advertised, the expenditure incurred on these advertisements was more than was originally estimated. This represents the amount of R11,500. Then there is an amount of R7,500 for diverse expenditure and an amount of R45,000 for supplies and services. This then gives the total amount of R237,000 for Fort Hare.

For the University of Zululand there is an amount of R98,000. The amount consists of the following: Salaries, R45,000. The same explanation applies here as the one I furnished a moment ago in respect of Fort Hare, and also applies with effect from April, 1970. Then there is an amount of R53,000 for supplies and services. The explanation for that is as follows: As a result of the great increase in the number of students and the backlog in respect of equipment in the various faculties, which has been building up over the past few years, the University finds it impossible to cover expenditure by means of the appropriated funds.

Lastly, there is the University of the North. There, R74,000 is required for salaries, R5,000 for subsistence and transport and R9,000 for diverse expenditure. This gives a total of R88,000. The hon. member asked me for an explanation in respect of the total additional amount which must be made available, namely R3 558,000, and I have now furnished him with the full explanation. The additional amount of R148,000 which is being requested under subhead N—Provision for retirement benefits—is attributable to the salary adjustments with effect from 1st January, 1971. This is a consequential obligation. The amount of R1,097,000 which is being requested under subhead O—Grantin-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund—is made up as follows: Vacation Savings Bonus—R854,000, in respect of which the same explanation I gave a moment ago in regard to the Public Service Commission notice applies. An amount of R243,000 is required for the Tswana Territorial Authority, as a result of four new secondary and primary schools opened at the beginning of January, 1971, at Mabopane to accommodate the children of the large number of Bantu who have been resettled in Mabopane. No provisions has been made for the equipment of the schools, the salaries of teachers and the adjustment of salaries of Bantu teachers with effect from 1st April, 1970, nor for the general adjustment of salaries with effect from 1st January, 1971. The additional amount of R854,000 is made up as follows: Ciskei—R204,000; Tswanaland — R263,000; Vendaland — R72,000; Matshangana Territorial Authority—R63,000; Lebowa—R249,000 and Basuto bo Borwa Territorial Authority— R9,000. That is the complete explanation for this additional amount.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the full reply he has given to us.

You asked for a full reply.

Yes, and I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the full information he has given us. I am not being critical. The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to look suspicious!

I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that for Fort Hare an amount of R149,000 was voted for increased salaries of lecturers and professors.

That is right.

Why is it so much more than that given to the other universities? It seems to me that there is no comparison at all. Yet in so far as the staffs are concerned, they must be more or less the same. Why is the amount for Fort Hare so large compared to the others?

Mr. Chairman, the position is that the various university staffs are not all of an equal size. It is therefore not inevitable that this amount will be the same for one university as for another. Therefore, the amount for Fort Hare is larger because the staff position is such that it has made a larger amount necessary there than for the other universities.

Mr. Chairman, the number of personnel of Fort Hare is not so much greater than in the other universities. We received figures in this regard, but unfortunately I do not have them here with me now. However, there is no comparison whatsoever on the figures given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He for instance said that an additional amount of R98,000 is to be voted for education purposes in Zululand. That is the total amount for Bantu education there and not only for increases, as compared to the R194,000 voted for increases in salaries only at Fort Hare. There does not seem to be any comparison.

Mr. Chairman, in my reply to the hon. member I pointed out that two increases were granted. On 1st October, 1969, an increase in salaries had already been granted. With effect from 1st April, 1970, an increase was also granted, and a further increase was granted on 23rd February, 1971. The great difference in these amounts is therefore attributable to the size of the staff of the University of Fort Hare and the fact that at Fort Hare specifically two salary increases were granted. The position is simply that all universities, as far as this matter is concerned, are not all treated alike. We receive representations from Fort Hare in respect of the position. According to the representations before us, it was the correct thing to do and that is why it was done in this way.

Votes put and agreed to.

S.W.A. Vote No. 13,—“Bantu Education,” R60,000:

Mr. Chairman, the grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund for educational services by Native authorities in Native territories is dealt with separately from the schools. Why has this been done?

The reply is precisely the same. The amount of R60,000 is required in respect of additional salary increases and vacation savings bonuses, in terms of Public Service Notice 5/6/5 of the 13th January, 1971. It is simply a consequential increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 29,—“Justice,” R44,500:

Mr. Chairman, this Vote provides for an additional amount of R44,500 for legal expenses incurred by the State Attorney. Could the hon. the Minister indicate to us whether any of this amount has been caused by a series of decisions of the …

Order! The hon. member may only ask why there is an increase.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is related to the judgments against the Publications Board.

The hon. the Minister may reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount of R44,500 is the deficit which remained in spite of certain savings which were effected. As hon. members know, the State Attorney incurs legal expenses on behalf of all departments and departmental bodies. What the number of cases will be and what the expenses involved will be are, of course, completely unpredictable and indeterminable. As it happened, we had quite a few major cases in the past year. These include, inter alia, the Agliotti case which cost R36,633. Incidentally, that saved us R5 million. [Interjections.] Then there was the case of Von During v. Agricultural Credit which cost R22,710. In addition there was the case of Glenvista v. the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and that cost R13.970. There was also the case of Motor Columbus v. The Department of Water Affairs which cost R32,300. There is another case pending, i.e. that of Rainbow Chickens v. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services. These are only a few of them.

Do any of these cases relate to the judgments against the Publications Board?

I am unable to say whether these have been finalized in this year. The cases could have served in one year whereas the accounts might only be charged in the following year.

So, in other words, the hon. the Minister anticipates that these judgments would probably have been given against the Publications Board. He takes them into account.

No.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether this amount includes libel cases against Ministers? [Laughter.] Well, what is the answer?

Mr. Chairman, as justification for this increase the hon. the Minister mentioned, inter alia, the Agliotti case of R36,000, and two cases against the Department of Agricultural Credit, of which the one amounted to R22,000 and the other to R13,000. In addition he mentioned a case against Water Affairs of which the expenses amounted to R32,000. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has gone into all these cases and whether he can tell me whether the other departments which are causing him to pay such large additional amounts have not erred? Surely it is unreasonable to ask the hon. the Minister to pay these amounts of hundreds and thousands of rand without his having ascertained whether such payments are justified.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be so good as to emulate the example of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and tell us what in fact is involved. What in fact is the cause for this increase? What are the other cases involved?

I have told the hon. member that legal expenses and the various cases involving the various departments are completely indeterminable and incalculable at the beginning of the year. Consequently we simply make an estimate of what the costs will more or less be. Then, at the end of the year, we find that there is a deficit. There has been such a deficit this year. I have gone further and I have said that we have had a few major cases which contributed to this deficit. More than this I cannot say.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister if he is unable to give us the information now, whether he can tell us where and how we can get the information concerning the cost of specific cases which apply to the Government, for instance the question of libel cases against Ministers? Where can we get that information if the hon. the Minister cannot give it to us in this debate?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may put questions to me during the discussion of my Vote or at question time. Then I shall be able to give him the costs of each case. However, the hon. member should not ask me to check all the records in the offices of the seven State Attorneys. He should mention the cases concerned to me and in that case I shall give him the costs involved in those cases.

Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to mention that the additional amount to be voted amounts to R44,500. Is it correct that the total additional amount to be spent is the difference between the original amount and the revised amount, i.e. R130,000? It is an increase of 33 per cent.

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister confirm that this amount of R44,500 is also to provide for not only the costs incurred on the part of the Government or State departments but also for such costs as the Government has been ordered to pay to successful parties?

Also what the Government has been ordered to pay.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned the costs in connection with the Rainbow Chickens case. What portion of the extra amount now asked for has been due to this increase?

The costs in regard to that case have so far amounted to R1,075.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any portion of the amount making up this total of R44,500 applies to cases brought against Ministers where claims for damages were settled out of court.

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply in regard to the Rainbow Chickens case, the hon. the Minister said that “so far” an amount of R1,075 had been paid out. Does he anticipate that there will be further payments? This is my first point. My second question is whether this amount of R1,075 is in respect of costs or in settlement of the claim?

Costs.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 31,—“Prisons”, R1,048,000:

Mr. Chairman, relating to item F, Supplies and Services, the House is asked to vote a rather large additional amount of R853,000. Can the hon. the Minister explain the reason for this?

Mr. Chairman, the increase of R853,000 on the original estimate of R8,470,000 is attributable to an increase in costs. The department naturally buys an enormous quantity of supplies. Supplies have become more expensive. The amount is being asked for supplies and services. As far as services are concerned, an amount of R53,000 is mainly attributable to the increase in medical costs. Moreover, enormous quantities of supplies, such as blankets, beds, mattresses, pillows, sheets, spades, picks, and many others, are, of course bought for the department. All these things contributed to the increase on this item.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount required on the Estimates of Expenditure shows an increase of something like 2 per cent over the Budget voted last year. In the case of this Vote, No. 31, and in particular subhead F, the increase is of the order of 10 per cent. The increase relates to no particular or extraordinary item of expenditure—it relates purely to normal increases of cost. In view of the fact that the increase is 10 per cent, which is so much more than the general increase, is the Minister satisfied that the budgeting done by this department originally is as efficient as would be desirable?

Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly satisfied that the budgeting is in order. No blame attaches to the department.

It is only out by a million or so.

I can give the hon. member an explanation. I have said the increase in respect of medical services is R53,000—it is R530,000, because of the increase in medical costs of between 20 and 25 per cent.

It is not only R53,000?

No, I have made a mistake. R530,000 is attributable to the increase in medical costs. The hon. member should remember that we have a very large number of people who have to be given medical treatment. Medical treatment is given to the staff as well. This is an enormous item of expenditure.

This is an incredible figure which the hon. the Minister is giving us—an increase of R½ million in medical services! I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to give us more information. To whom is it paid? Is it for full-time medical officers? Is it to private practitioners? How does it compare with the original estimates for medical services? Why is there this vast increase?

Mr. Chairman, as regards subhead D “Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications”, could the Minister tell us why he advertises prisons?

The hon. member should not try to crack jokes and make a fool of himself. The department advertises vacant posts.

Is he interested in an advertised prison?

If he is interested in this, of course, it is a different matter. Hon. members do not realize what the position is as regards a prison service. In the prison service all prisoners receive free medical treatment. If necessary, they are treated by specialists or they are treated in private nursing homes, which costs an enormous amount of money. In addition to that, the staff, too, normally receives free treatment. If they require treatment by a specialist, they pay one-seventh. This is one of their conditions of service. Throughout the years this has been the position. Now there has been an increase in medical fees of between 20 and 25 per cent—this has given rise to the amount of R530,000 out of the total amount of R853,000, which I have mentioned here.

What was the original amount?

That is not specified separately, it is included in the one amount under “Supplies and Services”.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32,—“Mines”, R3,969,038:

With regard to item E, will the hon. the Minister please tell us why there is an ex gratia remission of royalties due by the Divisional Council of Port Elizabeth?

I should like to furnish the following explanation on behalf of the Minister: This has to do with quartzite mined by the Divisional Council. The following is a full explanation of the case: The remainder of erf No. 590, Bethelsdorp, Division of Port Elizabeth, was registered, from 1949 to 9th August, 1966, in the name of the Divisional Council of Port Elizabeth by whom it was administered under a separate account as a local area for occupation by non-Whites. The title deed on the land contains a condition regarding all minerals in respect of the State. On 9th June, 1969, it came to the notice of the Mine Commissioner, Barkly West, in whose mining district the above mentioned land is situated, that the Divisional Council, up to 17th May, 1965, was mining a quarry on the land, from which altogether 561,507½ cubic yards of quartzite were removed. This action was irregular because the Divisional Council neither had any authority from the Department of Mines to that effect nor had it complied with the prescribed legal requirements. However, everything pointed to the fact that the Divisional Council acted entirely in good faith and the removal of the quartzite took place as long ago as prior to 17th May, 1965. On 10th August, 1966, the land in question was transferred to the City Council of Port Elizabeth subject to the same conditions in regard to minerals, and on that date the accounts and surplus funds were handed over to the city council. In the case in question the Minister of Mines indicated on 15th January, 1970, that royalties amounting to 2½ cents per cubic yard of quartzite removed would be a reasonable amount to be paid to the State in respect of royalties, and on this basis the Department of Mines endeavoured to recover the amount of R14,037.68 from the Divisional Council.

However, the Divisional Council advanced as an argument the fact that it was not in a position to pay this amount since it had administered the land in question under a special account and was legally compelled to plough back the income it had derived from the land into the area in the interests of the non-White inhabitants. The Department has no reason to presume that this was not actually done. Secondly, the accounts and surplus funds were handed over to the City Council of Port Elizabeth on 10th October, 1966. Whether a portion of this income was derived from the quarry situated on the land is impossible to say. Thirdly, if the Divisional Council were forced to refund this amount, it would necessarily have to do so out of the pockets of the other ratepayers who never enjoyed any benefit from the exploitation of the quarry in question. After discussions which took place between the Treasury and the Deputy State Attorney, Cape, the former decided on 17th April, 1971, under his reference B.10/2/4, to approve the ex gratia remission of the royalties which were due, i.e. subject to confirmation by this House.

Mr. Chairman, will the Minister please tell me, under item K, which mines are going to receive this large amount of R3,900,000 and for what purpose they are going to receive it?

The explanation I have here on behalf of the hon. the Minister is as follows: It does not seem to me as if the explanation furnishes the particulars about the mines. Since the beginning of the year the running costs in the gold-mining industry have shown an appreciable increase over the accepted gradual increase. This increase was to some extent neutralized by the slight increase in gold premium receipts. Both these factors have a considerable effect on the amount which can be claimed in terms of the statutory tax credit formula. This is the only explanation I have here. If any additional information becomes available to me while this Vote is under discussion I will gladly furnish it to the hon. member.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has not done his homework. If he is just going to come here and read out a document, we might as well just have a tape recorder. We have asked the Deputy Minister a question; is he unable to answer the question?

In relation to this item I should like to know the following: (a) the reason for such a large additional amount of R3,900,000 in relation to an original estimate of R14 million; (b) the nature of this assistance—the hon. the Deputy Minister has to some extent dealt with that although I do not think adequately—and (c) if this is assistance to individual mines, to which mines and how much in each instance?

I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is satisfied that there is a good reason why the Minister of Mines is not here to reply to these questions?

Order!

In reply to the further questions put by the hon. member for Musgrave, I just want to inform him that I regret that I have no further information at my disposal which I can furnish him. The actual shortfall is R4,200,000; this amount represents assistance given to needy mines in the form of tax credit. Cost savings amounted to R300,000, which then leaves an amount of R3,900,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 33,—“Health,” R711,000:

I would like the hon. the Minister to give us more details as to the purpose of this medical poor relief. Is this amount going to be given to institutions or organizations …

Order! The hon. member may not advance reasons; he may only ask for the reasons for the increase.

The information which I have here on behalf of the Minister is as follows: The anticipated excess on this subhead is estimated at R1,730,000, but in view of the fact that it is expected that R1,019,000 can be met from savings on other subheads of the Vote, only the balance of R711,000 requires appropriation in the Additional Estimates. The major portion of the anticipated excess appears on the first three items, namely, medical services (fees and allowances), medicines and dressings (or allowances in lieu) and surgical appliances. The exceptionally high estimated deficit is attributable to the following factors: (a) Up to the 31st March, 1969 the Provincial Administrations accepted financial responsibility for the medical treatment of indigent residents in old-age homes in the larger centres of the Republic, but as from the 1st April, 1969 this responsibility was taken over by the Department, and the provision on the second item of the subhead was specially increased by an amount of R200,000 in terms of Treasury authority dated 31st January, 1969. However, due to the late submission of accounts by pharmacies and the Transvaal Pharmaceutical Society, in the latter instance owing to acute staff difficulties, and the fact that all the old-age homes did not immediately and fully avail themselves of these facilities, a saving of R350,000 was effected on this item during the 1969-’70 financial year. From 1st April, 1970, an amount of R600,000 was transferred from the second item to Subhead 10 of Vote 27, Bantu Administration and Development, in respect of the medical treatment of Bantu indigents residing in the Bantu homelands. It now appears that the amount transferred was over-estimated to the extent of R200,000. In view of the fact that medical practitioners are loath to accept appointments as part-time district surgeons at a fixed salary and an inclusive drug allowance, the department is reluctantly compelled to utilize the services of private practitioners in an ever-increasing number of vacant district surgeoncies. As such practitioners are remunerated at tariffs applicable to medical aid societies and the medicines prescribed are obtained from pharmacies, the cost to the department is considerably more than it would have been had the services been rendered by part-time district surgeons and the medicines supplied out of their drug allowance. In several instances these private practitioners are the former incumbents of the vacant district surgeons’ posts and at many centres the cost to the department has more than doubled. Full-time district surgeons including locos tenentes employed on a session basis against vacant posts in all the big centres and part-time district surgeons in certain areas issued prescriptions on local chemists for the supply of the bulk of medicines and dressings required by indigent patients. Part-time district surgeons in receipt of an inclusive drug allowance are also permitted to issue prescriptions in respect of expensive drugs required by indigent chronic patients receiving treatment at home or elsewhere outside hospitals. In the treatment of indigents, district surgeons are increasingly using the latest and more effective remedies, but owing to the high cost of such remedies the expenditure reflects a continuous rise. Furthermore, the rising cost of medicines and drugs and the increasing demand for these services by indigents accounts for a considerable portion of the increased expenditure. It is unfortunately not possible to curtail these services. As the result of the further increase in the tariff of fees, the cost of dental services rendered to indigents has also increased considerably.

I want to point out that the Deputy Minister has replied to the second Vote before the first. He has replied to Vote 34 before he has replied to Vote 36. But may I ask the Minister whether it is his experience that it would be far more economical to raise the salaries of district surgeons then to go to all this extra expense?

Order!

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 35,—“Radio Services”, R35,000:

Here an additional amount of R35,000 is being asked for in respect of operating expenses of external radio services as part of a total increase of R180,000, which is almost 10 per cent more for this specific service. I should like to know from the Minister why this large increase is being requested.

This is, of course, the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of National Education, but in terms of the Appropriation Act of 1970 my department continues to be finally responsible for dealing with this Vote, and this is why I reply to it. This additional amount is required mainly in respect of maintenance costs of the transmitters for the external radio service. This amount is also required for expenditure in respect of increased staff benefits as well as higher programme costs and the cost of additional programmes and frequency schedules. I may just mention that, as far as the latter is concerned, overseas demands for these frequency schedules have increased considerably and these account for the additional expenditure included in this amount.

When the hon. the Minister speaks of programme schedules and additional expenditure in respect thereof, are these for programmes sent to people who have made inquiries in that respect? I just want to get clarity as to what it means. It does not mean the extension of the programmes themselves?

It is not for the extension of the programmes. It is merely for the programme schedules for which there was a greater demand.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K,—“Community Development”, R50:

I should like the Minister to explain the item which appears under Loan Vote K in so far as the purchase of quarters for medical personnel of Edendale Hospital is concerned. Is this the purchase of an existing building, or what type of building is it? What type of buildings are these? Are they separate dwellings? Perhaps the Minister can explain what they are.

We are being asked to vote a new amount under a new heading, a new head for the purchase of quarters for the medical personnel of Edendale Hospital. We are being in effect asked to vote an amount of R190,000, although only R50 is being asked for.

The hon. member must put questions to the Minister.

With respect, this is a new item and I would like to have your ruling as to whether I can discuss this.

The hon. member may proceed.

The point is this. We are being asked to vote R190,000, but what are we being asked to vote this for? These are the questions I think the Minister must give an answer to. I notice, incidentally, that this amount of R190,000 has already been covered by a State President’s warrant. Does this represent the cost of the purchase of the block of flats named Highlands in Alexandra Road, Pietermaritzburg? Does it represent wholly the cost of the purchase of the building, or does it also include the amount which would be required for the transfer in the Deeds Office, agent’s commission and various other aspects as well? In his reply I would like the Minister please to give us details. If there is an agent’s commission to be paid, is it included in this amount? If so, what is the amount and to whom is it to be paid? There is also the question of transfer costs involved in the transfer of this property from the past owners to this hon. Minister’s department.

The most important aspect of this is that this seems to indicate a change of policy on the part of that hon. Minister and his department. This is for the purchase of quarters. It is not for the erection of quarters. I submit that in the past his function or his department’s function has been the erection of quarters. We accept that he has to provide accommodation for the medical personnel of Edendale Hospital. There is no question about that.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister is jumping ahead. He must wait. He will get his chance to reply. He gave me the opportunity to come in first, but now he does not want to give me the chance to go ahead. He now seems to have changed his policy.

There is another question in respect of which we want clarity from the hon. the Minister today. Is this R190,000 involved in that one block of flats only? Or is it his intention to use this amount to purchase other blocks of flats? Rumours are rife over there. It is no good my hon. friend on my left in his ignorance talking about R50. It is R190,000 that we are asked to vote and not R50. Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to purchase other blocks of flats in Pietermaritzburg? The people of Pietermaritzburg are upset about this. There is no security amongst the people. They feel insecure because there are other blocks of flats which are up for sale. They want to know.

Who wants to know?

The people of Pietermaritzburg.

What do they want to know?

The hon. the Minister is not listening. He is talking to his colleagues whilst I am talking to him.

I am listening. There are lots of flats up for sale here as well.

They want to know whether it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to purchase other blocks of flats in Pietermaritzburg. On this question of change of policy, the hon. the Minister has known for three years, or his department should have known for three years, that he would have to provide this accommodation. If the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development did not tell him, that is not our fault. I feel that his department ought to know. Why have they not taken the necessary steps to provide this accommodation rather than invade the private sector and take this accommodation from those families who are in Highlands today?

The first question is whether he is going to purchase other blocks as well. Another point arises. Will the hon. the Minister find alternative accommodation for the present tenants of those flats? I know that he has on two occasions given me an assurance that nobody would be thrown out onto the streets. But, Sir, the hon. the Minister’s local representative in Pietermaritzburg has made a contradictory statement. The people of Pietermaritzburg are upset about this and they want to know the truth. Will the hon. the Minister abide by the undertaking he gave me? He is an honourable man and I am sure he will. The people of Pietermaritzburg would like to hear from him personally that he will help them to find suitable and similar alternative accommodation.

Did you get the letter I sent you?

I am coming to the letter. I knew the hon. the Minister was going to ask me that. I am coming to that in a minute. The people want to know whether he will help them, or whether he will abide by the statement of his local representative in Pietermaritzburg, i.e. that only those with dependants who fall within the income qualifications of his department will be assisted. Will the hon. the Minister assist the other people as well? We just want a categoric assurance on that.

On the question of the letter that the hon. the Minister refers to, we have alleged …

I hope you will read the whole letter.

If the hon. member so wishes, it will be read. It is a question of whether or not there is alternative accommodation available. I have alleged that there is no, or very little, alternative accommodation available, certainly not accommodation similar to that which they have today and at a similar rental. The letter which the hon. the Minister refers to is a letter received from someone in Pietermaritzburg who wrote to the hon. the Minister. I do not think we should mention the person’s name at this stage. If the hon. the Minister wishes to, he is free to do so. In this letter this person alleges that there is now a flat available in one block in Pietermaritzburg, a flat consisting of two bedrooms, lounge …

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to the item on “Purchase of quarters for the medical personnel of Edendale Hospital”.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, this is the matter I am dealing with.

Yes, but the hon. member is going too wide. We are dealing with a specific amount.

If you rule that I must come away from this letter and come back to the question of the application of R190,000, I abide by your ruling, Sir.

The next point I want to make is whether the R190,000 includes compensation to the present tenants of the flats. The present tenants have been given notice that they must move by the 30th June. They are going to incur certain expenditure in moving to other accommodation, if and when they can find it. Does the hon. the Minister accept that he should be liable to compensate them for this move, which is not a voluntary move in the normal course, but an involuntary one caused by the hon. the Minister’s actions.

Order! The hon. member already put that question in the beginning. It is now repetition.

Do you mean the question of compensation for moving. Sir?

Yes.

Well, then the Minister has that point. Then there is the cost of improvements. One of the tenants in this block of flats has over the last three months spent over R100 on improving the flat by repainting and redecorating it.

Why did he not ask the owner to do it?

Because in terms of the lease the onus is on the tenant to look after the interior of the flat. The hon. the Minister airs his ignorance again. As I have said, this particular tenant has spent over R100 and he has spent it believing that he is protected by the terms of the Rents Act. He now finds that that protection has been removed from him. I hope that in the R190,000 is included amounts to compensate tenants for just that sort of expenditure which they have undertaken.

To summarize briefly, is this amount only for the purchase of Highlands, or is it for the purchase of other blocks in Pietermaritzburg as well? And will it cover compensation to the tenants for the cost of moving and compensation for renovations which they have undertaken?

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount of R50 is down here as payment for the block of flats which was bought from these people in order to house the personnel of the Edendale Hospital. The rest of the amount, namely R189,950 will be met out of savings. That is the total amount which will be paid—nothing more and nothing else. As far as the people who are in these flats are concerned, those people who fall within the purview of the responsibility of my department I will see to it that they get alternative accommodation. As far as the other people are concerned, it is their job to see that they get alternative accommodation but we will do everything in our power to help them with that. I wonder if my hon. friend will be so kind as to send that letter across to me, so that I can just read it to the House. I think it is a very interesting letter. I think this also replies the question of the hon. member for Green Point as well. This is the letter. I will not say from whom it comes. It is addressed to me and I was kind enough to send the hon. member a copy of it. It reads as follows—

There is therefore an alternative flat for her. There are in fact 21 alternative flats in two buildings.

No, one only.

No, there are these 21 flats and they are willing to make them available. I quote further—

The handwriting is difficult to read—

It is quite clear what we are doing here. We do not depart from the principle at all. It is a principle of the Department of Community Development to buy lots of properties. This is not a new principle. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member then say that we do not buy property? That hon. member should help him. I think he is very ignorant. I think this woman is right, the hon. member does not earn his money. I cannot say anything more than this. That is the complete reply.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us some more information in regard to the purchase of this block of flats, for instance, the price paid, whether any commission was payable and to whom, when transfer will be taken, the cost of transfer and how many persons will be accommodated in this block of flats when it has been acquired?

The price of this block of flats was R190,000. I think 24 families are living in that block of flats. I do not know from whom it was bought, but I can obtain that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, did I hear correctly that R190,000 was the purchase price for the block of flats?

Yes.

There is no question of commission or anything else involved?

Not that I know of.

Arising further out of the hon. the Minister’s reply and particularly with regard to his reading of this letter, if I might mention it, I think the hon. the Minister must read the letter again. There are not 21 flats available. There is only one flat available at the moment. There will be further flats available during June. This is what the letter says.

They can stay in that block of flats until June.

That is correct. But has the hon. the Minister satisfied himself that the present tenants of Highlands will not be worse off by moving to these blocks of flats than they are at the moment? This is the important principle that is involved here, namely that there should be suitable similar accommodation at a similar rental. This is the whole point. The hon. the Minister now appears to be going back on the undertakings which he gave me before. He is now sticking to the story of his local representative in Pietermaritzburg, namely that only those tenants who fall within certain income groups will be assisted by him. He is not sticking to his original undertaking, namely that he would see that nobody slepts on the streets and that he would see that everyone of these tenants got alternative accommodation. He gave me that undertaking twice. This is the doubt which exists in the mind of those people today because of this very vacillation. I asked the hon. the Minister again to give a categoric assurance to the people of Pietermaritzburg that they will be assisted by him and his department to find suitable similar accommodation. And not only those people who fall within these income limits, but all the tenants of this block of flats. Let me just put it to the hon. the Minister in reply to the writer of that letter. I have here a copy of the Natal Witness of Saturday, 6th March. This is the paper in which most people look for accommodation. What do we find in this newspaper? We find only one flat to let in the whole of Pietermaritzburg. This flat is available for five months or longer, is unfurnished, self-contained, a three-bed-roomed half-house. The rental is R100 per month. If one looks at houses to let, one finds that there are six houses to let. That is all. This gives a total of seven in the whole of Pietermaritzburg. However, even those six houses are not in Pietermaritzburg. The first one is a swop. The advertisement says: “We have been transferred to Ladysmith and we would like to arrange a swop with somebody who is being transferred to Pietermaritzburg”. The second one is available at a rental of R180 per month, and is unfurnished. The third one is fully furnished and is available for two months only. No rental is mentioned. The third one is a three-bedroomed farm-house which is situated 12 miles from Greytown, 40 miles from Pietermaritzburg …

Order! What has that to do with the amount under discussion?

Mr. Chairman, with respect, this is dealing with the question of the policy of the hon. the Minister in this regard. Here he is displacing tenants from flats; he is actually ejecting them. I am also dealing with the question of whether or not there is alternative accommodation available for them. Surely this must be taken into consideration when the hon. the Minister takes these steps. He must take this into consideration. This is a new item and a new policy. Here he is taking a block of flats. Does the hon. the Minister admit that he has done this in the past? Has he purchased blocks of flats and as a result of that ejected people?

It is being done in Pretoria right now.

Well, it is a crying shame that this has not been brought to the notice of the public before. It is obvious that some members on the other side have not been doing their duty. I am at least earning my money, as was stated in a letter written to the hon. the Minister, because I am looking after my people. However, there appear to be members who are not looking after their constituents. This is definitely the case if the hon. the Minister admits that he has done this in the past and got away with it. He is not going to get away with it in Pietermaritzburg today.

Mr. Chairman, it is utter tripe if that hon. member says that I have promised that all the people will be assisted with accommodation. I gave the undertaking that those people who fall under the responsibility of my department, in other words, people who fall within certain income group, would be looked after and that I would see to it that they got proper accommodation. The other people were given more than six months to look for accommodation. If they cannot find any, my department will give them all possible assistance to get that accommodation. What responsibility does my department have when that hon. member is ejected from his house? Does the department have to find him alternative accommodation? There is no necessity for the department to do so, because it is not its responsibility.

You do not accept responsibility?

I will accept responsibility to help those people as far as I possibly can. The department only undertakes to help those people who fall within a certain income group. Of course, I do not accept that responsibility as far as those people are concerned. Must I accept responsibility for every person who has to look for alternative accommodation? [Interjections.] So what! These people are wealthy and they were given six months’ notice …

No!

Of course, the majority of them are wealthy and the hon. member knows it.

What do you call wealthy?

Well, wealthier than you are. Anyway, they are wealthy enough to get their own accommodation. They do not fall within the limits set by my department in regard to the housing of people. It is their own responsibility. The most I can do is to say that we will give them all the possible help. However, they were given six months and longer to look for alternative accommodation. I therefore do not think the hon. member has made a point at all. I have already replied to him in full. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated to us that he is asking us to approve of this policy, a policy which I think he should avoid adopting. I am referring to the taking over or purchasing of existing residential accommodation. In this instance it is some distance from the hospital concerned. Surely, in circumstances such as these where we have a shortage of housing in the country, his department should erect premises when accommodation is required for the personnel of any department. His department should not take over or purchase existing buildings. The position in Pietermaritzburg is not different from what it is anywhere else. These flats are already occupied. There is not an abundance of outside accommodation. I would have thought that the policy of his department would rather be to erect the premises required for personnel than to take over existing premises. There are various factors which have to be considered. Once the Government takes over a property, Rent Board regulations and rent control fall away. The Government itself can decide what its terms and charges are to the persons who occupy that accommodation. The very figure the hon. the Minister has given us, namely the purchase price of accommodation for 24 families, will provide reasonably priced accommodation for 24 families in Pietermaritzburg for the general public and not only for State employees. There is another reason why I say this is a wrong principle to adopt, namely for the State to purchase blocks of flats. The hon. the Minister is well aware that State employees, after being in the service of the State for a short time, are entitled to a 100 per cent housing loan. The facilities are there for a State employee to build his own home, but those facilities are not there for the man in the private sector. He has to struggle to get a building society bond and to try to make ends meet when he tries to put up his own dwelling. I therefore think it is entirely wrong for the State to take over existing residential accommodation as is envisaged here to house State servants when those servants themselves are entitled to 100 per cent housing loans from the State under the existing arrangements.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister give the undertaking that he will not buy any more flats for the personnel of Edendale Hospital in Pietermaritzburg?

Mr Chairman, I cannot give that undertaking. I have been asked to do this by the Department of Health. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that this should only be done in exceptional cases. It has been done in Pretoria recently, where the Administrator of the Transvaal bought a block of flats to provide accommodation for the Teachers’ College. There was also an outcry as to where those people would find alternative accommodation, but every one of those people was accommodated elsewhere in Pretoria. I want to give hon. members the undertaking that after the 30th June there will not be one single person who does not have accommodation in Pietermaritzburg, who will not be suitably accommodated elsewhere. The hon. member is kicking up a completely unnecessary row. These people must not, however, think that they do not have to look for alternative accommodation themselves. They must not think that they can rely on the department to supply them with accommodation. The department will give them all possible assistance, and the hon. member will have reason to grouse and to move a reduction in my salary next year if there is one family on the street after the 30th June.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the undertaking of the hon. the Minister and I want to thank him for it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 37,—“Public Works,” R2 442,000:

Mr. Chairman, there are some large additional amounts required by the hon. the Minister under this Vote. In regard to Item F, can the hon. the Minister explain to me why there is an increase of 25 per cent when one adds the savings amounting to R71,000 to the additional amount to be voted, namely R264,000?

Mr. Chairman, this increase is attributable to the furnishing of new and additional accommodation both in the Republic and abroad. It is also for the replacement of worn and obsolete furniture; for the increase in the price of furniture and safes, which is a very large item; and it is for the purchase of glassware for the purposes of issuing, replacing and supplementing these items in future at Libertas, the diplomatic guest house; and at foreign missions. These are the reasons for this considerable increase. I do not think this amount of R264,000 is such a tremendous increase when one has regard to the rising prices of these articles.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand from the hon. the Minister that whereas under the Loan Vote provision is made for embassies and other buildings that may be required overseas, furniture is acquired out of the Revenue Vote and not out of the Loan Vote?

I now want to deal with Item M, “Minor Works and Alteration Services”. In regard to this item, there is also an increase of some 20 per cent. Can the hon. the Minister indicate, other than the list which he gave me in reply to a question recently, what other minor works have been done to justify this increase? Does this include the amount which the hon. the Minister gave me as being spent on Cabinet Ministers’ houses?

Mr. Chairman, I just want a little more information about the “furniture” under Subhead F. Is it only for those buildings which the hon. the Minister mentioned, i.e. Libertas and the houses of diplomatic representatives?

No.

In that case, can the hon. the Minister perhaps give us more information about the houses for which the furniture is intended? Are, inter alia, Ministerial houses included amongst these?

The furniture is also for Ministerial houses and what is wrong with that?

We simply sleep on the floor.

Are they to sleep on planks from old boxes, or what? No, Sir, if the present furniture is worn, it will be replaced. Hon. members should not think that they can scare me with that kind of talk. The houses will be properly furnished, and I shall see to that. The hon. member may make as much political propaganda of this as he wants to. As regards Libertas, the diplomatic guest house and the foreign missions, it is for the replacement of glassware.

Mr Chairman, we are being asked to vote the very substantial additional amount of R685,000 under Subhead M. Could the Minister tell us what standards are applied and what control is exercised in deciding whether a minor work or an alteration service is really necessary and desirable?

Order! The hon. member may only ask for reasons for the increase.

Mr. Chairman, it is very easy to explain this amount. Because of the scarcity of building materials, the delays in the building industry, etc., an amount of R754,000 was surrendered last year, 1969- ’70. It was to be spent, but could not be spent because of these difficulties in the building industry.

Oh, there are difficulties in the building industry?

Yes, there are difficulties in the building industry. Why do you English not build more? You should build more.

You ought to build.

We build a great deal. We build more than anyone else. It is as a result of the surrender of that money that this amount of R685,000 has to be spent now.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the moving speech of the hon. the Minister on the crying need for furniture for Ministerial homes has moved all of us to tears.

Order! The hon. member must put his question.

The hon. the Minister said this was one of the reasons.

When did I say there was a crying need?

The hon. the Minister’s colleague said they would otherwise have to sleep on the floors. Here the hon. the Minister is requesting money for furniture for ministerial houses. Can he give us any idea of the condition of the furniture which is now to be replaced? Are they, for example, going to place this old second-hand furniture which is collapsing, on an auction so that one may buy it? What is going to happen to that furniture? [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.