Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

When the third reading of this Bill has been passed an era will have come to an end in so far as the provinces of this country are concerned. A situation which has existed almost since Union will have changed and the provinces will have lost some of the functions they have exercised for a great number of years. Instead they will basically become the servants of the Central Government. The direct relationship between provincial councils and the people of their respective provinces will disappear with the passing of this Bill, because with the taking away of their right to levy personal and income tax something personal between the authority levying the tax and the people who have to pay it will have been removed. It is true that the public do not like taxation; they do not like paying taxes. However, there is a sort of bond between the taxing authority and the person who has to pay the tax. This may be a love/hate relationship but it nevertheless exists. The taxpayer awaits each year’s budget with a certain amount of anxiety, be it a provincial or State budget, in order to see where he stands. But this will now disappear as far as the provinces are concerned.

I find it difficult to understand the reasons for the Government’s decisions in this matter. They appointed a commission in 1960 to go into the whole question of the relationship between the Central Government and the provinces. This commission heard evidence and learned the facts. What is more important, it got to know the spirit and the mood of those who gave evidence before it, something the Government could not do. Yet all this has been ignored by the Government. From its ivory tower it decided on legislation which is diametrically opposed to the recommendations of the commission. The interesting thing is that the Government has even ignored its own terms of reference to the commission. Let us look at these terms of reference on page 5 of the report. It makes interesting reading in the light of what the Government has decided ought to be done. Let me read the following extracts from these terms of reference —

To inquire into and report on the financial relations between the Central Government and the Provinces, with particular reference to—

1. (a) (ii) the desirability or otherwise of a re-allocation of functions;
2. (b) the extent to which the existing sources of taxation fall short of the requirements of the Provinces to carry out the functions which are or should be assigned to them;
3. (c) the extent to which this shortfall could be met:
   1. (i) by the elimination of overlapping of Provincial and Central Government functions and services particularly in the fields of health, education and roads; and/or
   2. (ii) by a fuller exploitation by the Provinces of their existing sources of revenue;
4. (d) the extent to which any remaining shortfall could be met by the allocation to the Provinces of new sources of taxation or by re-allocation of existing sources between the Central Government and the Provinces with a view to the elimination of subsidies or any other form of financial assistance and, if not—
   1. (i) what form such financial assistance should take; and
   2. (ii) to what extent and on what basis control over expenditure out of such assistance should be exercised by the Central Government
5. (f) whether problems peculiar to particular Provinces or other special problems would militate against the adoption of such a uniform system and if so—
   1. (i) what the nature of the respective problems is; and
   2. (ii) what provision should be made to meet those problems if a uniform system is adopted.

If one reads this in the context of what the commission states on page 163 of its report, one can see how the commission regarded these instructions. There the criteria for the commission’s recommendations are set forth. In paragraph 1179 it reports—

Especially on the grounds of—

1. (c) the direction to your Commission in regard to the elimination of or the reduction in the subsidies to the provinces …

In other words, the commission regarded it as one of its functions that it should try to find a formula to reduce or eliminate the subsidies to the provinces. What has the result been? Today the Government is subsidizing the provinces to the extent of 82 per cent of their expenditure —quite contrary to the recommendations of the commission and to the basis on which the commission was appointed. All this is now being swept aside and the views of the commission are being ignored utterly and completely. Instead we get some new thinking which seems to be based on the fact that South Africa has become a republic. If one looks at the White Paper (W.P.D.—’71.) one sees on page 3 the following—

The Schumann Commission completed its work in the early sixties, i.e. at the beginning of a period when the following conditions, amongst others, began to exercise an effect on the country’s economy—

1. (1) The establishment of the Republic and the new approach which it necessitated to matters domestic as well as external.

Now, what on earth has the fact that South Africa became a Republic ten years ago got to do with the financial relationship between the provinces and the Central Government? Yet this is the basis upon which this White Paper has been drawn up. It goes on—

1. (2) The increased tempo of economic development which was fed by inter alia the new upsurge of confidence

This is an interesting factor which led to the relationship being changed—

What has that got to do with the financial relations between the provinces and the Central Government?—

1. (3) The increased responsibility which devolved on the Government in respect of defence, foreign affairs and aid to neighbouring territories;

This is the third reason for the recommendations in the White Paper. Then lastly—

1. (4) The more rapid application of the policy of separate development in conjunction with the creation of Bantu homelands, which place further demands on the available trained manpower as well as on the public finances.

What has that got to do with it?

Sir, these are the reasons for this Bill. These are the reasons why the Government has completely jettisoned the report of the commission, which sat for four years and reported six years later, and they produced a While Paper based on these criteria. I do not know what we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker. There is no basis for this whole situation. When you analyse the reasons given in this White Paper, when you tie it up with the report of the commission and when you examine the White Paper in detail, it seems to me that what we are faced with here are decisions made by technocrats. What has happened is that a slide rule has been taken, statistics have been established, and then in a completely unemotional objective study this matter has been dealt with, with only the financial factors as the criteria and with only the financial facts having any bearing and any implication. Somebody has decided that the provinces must be part of the national economy as a whole; that these are the factors which are built into our national economy that these are the factors which arise out of our national economy, and therefore technically this is the basis upon which the provinces must receive their income: the answer is the subsidy scheme. Mr. Speaker, it fails to do what it should do; it fails in the basic concept that our Government in this country adheres to the three-tier system which we decided upon at the lime of Union, a system which imposes rights and a system which imposes obligations upon each tier of government. There was a right to tax but there was an obligation to provide services and to provide amenities.

The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate asked me whether, if I were the Minister of Finance. I would be satisfied with the present position and whether I would be satisfied if the provincial financial policies interfered with Central Government policy. Of course, I would not be satisfied if the policies of the provinces interfered with the policies of the Central Government, but I would not have to introduce legislation of this kind to make sure that the provinces complied with the general policy of the Central Government. Is the hon. the Minister suggesting that in the years gone by the provinces have frustrated the policy of the Central Government? Is he suggesting that the Central Government has not been powerful enough to see that the provinces operated in terms of general policies? Surely that has never happened. There may be differences of opinion between the Central Government and the provinces with regard to the way in which a particular problem should be handled, not necessarily matters of a financial nature but matters such as education, for example. But the inference here is that the Government has been unable to control the situation and that the provinces have been able to do exactly what they like. Therefore we have to have this Bill in order to keep them under control.

Sir, I had the privilege of leading the Budget debate in the Transvaal Provincial Council for a matter of seven years. I would hate to lead a Budget debate in a province after this Bill becomes law, because the Opposition’s field is going to be limited; the only thing that they will be able to discuss is a few minor taxes, involving 18 per cent of their income, and the provincial expenditure. This expenditure is confined to the amount of the subsidy which they are given by the Central Government, together with their own small income. The whole debate on provincial finances will be killed stone-dead when this Bill becomes law. What is the standard answer of the Executive Committee members going to be when matters are raised in the provinces in future? They are going to say in reply to queries: “82 per cent of our funds comes from the Central Government; we have to cut our coat according to our cloth; therefore our expenditure is based on the subsidies that we can receive. This is what we have been allocated. We have spent it to the best of our ability. There is nothing more we can do about it, so we might as well all go home.” This is going to be the position of the provinces when this Bill becomes law. Sir, the autonomy of the provinces ceases the day this Bill becomes an Act on our Statute Book.

Sir, the hon. member for Parktown is an economist, and I could sense that he was not speaking with conviction in this debate. If he is an economist of note, he will never be able to speak with conviction on a matter such as this. He made one statement to which I should like to reply immediately. He asked why it had become necessary, after the establishment of the Republic, to have better financial relations. Of course, Sir, after becoming a Republic, South Africa blossomed out in the economic field; the growth that has taken place in that field represents an achievement. As a result of this economic growth and this enormous development in South Africa, which have resulted in a large increase in the national product, national expenditure, we must take a close and careful look at both national and Government expenditure. This is a basic concept in regard to the Republic. What do the approach and the whole argument of the Opposition amount to? I pity the hon. member for Parktown, because he did not speak from his own conviction; that conviction derives from people who want to use this entire situation for political purposes; that is why they make the statement that we are breaking down the autonomy of the provinces. Sir, to me this reveals an absolute ignorance regarding governmental services in South Africa. I cannot for one moment think that there is no very dose, integral liaison among the Central Government, the provinces and the local authorities; it is a basic principle laid down within the framework of the economic possibility of expenditure, and, what is even more important, within the framework of the laws of the country, think that is why the hon. member for South Coast is so peevish about this legislation, i.e. because what has to be done in the future in respect of the development of South Africa, must be done within the framework of the laws of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for South Coast does not like that. He comes from a different era, from a different period, and I do not want to blame the hon. member for still flying a different flag, one in which the Republic is not interested at all today.

*HON. MEMBERS; Scandalous!

But it is a fact.

From what era are you—from the era of the Great Trek?

I am proud of being able to say that I do, indeed, derive from the era of the Great Trek. I do not think that hon. member has ever been further than Port Elizabeth. Sir, I want to make it very clear that this story that we are breaking down the provinces, that we want to get rid of the provinces, is a misconception. On the contrary, the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the provincial system is one we shall retain. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said the same a few months ago, i.e. that we are not breaking down the autonomy of the provinces.

Those are mere words.

*Dr. P. BODENSTEIN; Are these mere words? The hon. member for Green Point is fond of words, but I shall prove my contention now. What did the Central Government give the provinces in the past five years? The Central Government transferred vocational education, the fine arts and public holiday resorts to the provinces. It is ridiculous to suggest that we have deprived the provinces of something. On the contrary, we have given them these things I have just mentioned.

What about the training colleges? *

The position is that here in South Africa we have the situation, as a result of this economic growth, as a result of this economic development in South Africa, that we realize that governmental services must be rendered with the greatest efficiency, not only by the Central Government, but also by the provinces. I want to make it very clear that as far as the provinces are concerned, as far as I personally am concerned and as far as this side of the House is concerned, we have the highest regard for the services rendered by the provinces. This is legislation which will entrench the position of the provinces in the future, for good reasons. This legislation makes provision for that. There are five basic points which are of great importance in showing that this Bill will entrench their position in the future. The first is that the real financial needs of the provinces will be met. Their needs will, to a large extent, be met by the Central Government. Secondly, the provinces will be treated on an equal basis. This is a sound basis. It gives a sense of solidarity in respect of the entire Republic if all the provinces can work together towards one common ideal. In the third place, proper provision will be made for increases in the needs of the provinces. In other words, provision is being made for growth in the provinces. In the fourth place, there will be more certainty about the extent of the subsidies that will be received. The provinces know today that the subsidies they have to receive from the Central Government, will be received. This assurance is given in this legislation. In the fifth place, they will be able to plan ahead for a period of five years. The Opposition is continually complaining that this side of the House is not planning with far-sightedness for the future, but here we are coming forward with legislation which will make it possible for the provinces to plan for the future, and then the Opposition still objects to the Bill.

What is the formula?

The advantage is that it is very important to plan. With this rapid and enormous growth in South Africa, it is essential for the provinces to do their planning and to have the capital resources to carry out their plans and to provide services. I want to go further and make the statement that the provinces, including Natal, will come forward within a year or two and say they are particularly grateful for this legislation.

Sir, then one will get the opposite reaction again. You know. Sir, I want to write a hook one day. I want to write a book on the Opposition. [Interjections.] Sir, I assure you this concerns the Bill, because this is one of the pieces of legislation which they have attacked here. Within a year or two, as in the case of numerous other laws, they will jump on the bandwagon and pretend it is their legislation. This is going to happen in the case of this legislation. The hon. member for Parktown will still get up and pretend that it was they who made it possible for the provinces to bring about greater expansion. Sir, one does not interfere with the autonomy of a province when you give it the assurance of an amount of money. One does not tell the province how it should spend the money.

Oh no! Have you read the Bill?

The province has all opportunity of spending its money, and if the hon. member for Parktown wants to tell me a member of the provincial council has had his day, he is wrong. It is his duty to see to it that proper schools are erected in his constituency. It is his duty to see to hospital services, and it is his duty to serve on school committees and school boards and to see to roads. A member of the provincial council has a tremendous amount of work. I regard the allegation made by the hon. member for Parktown. i.e. that a member of the provincial council will no longer have any work, as absurd. He should rather level that allegation at Mr. Harry Schwarz and others who only want to indulge in politics in the provincial council, but he can never say that of provincial councillors of this Party who work for the public.

I want to conclude by discussing the aspect of efficiency and the economic aspect, that is to say, the advantages of this legislation. The one aspect in respect of which I blame the hon. member for Parktown is that he does not appreciate what this legislation involves as far as income tax is concerned; that he objected to that here. The Committee Stage was interesting. They had their opposition to the other clauses recorded, but when it came to the personal tax and the income tax of the provinces, we suddenly had to divide on the matter, because they ostensibly felt so strongly about it.

Precisely.

The hon. member for Parktown is an economist and must surely realize that if you can integrate the personal tax and the income tax of the provinces in your income tax, you are creating an instrument which is in the interests of South Africa. Then you have the possibility of a stable instrument, a strong instrument, for preventing fluctuations in the economic world. Surely the hon. member for Parktown knows this. He cannot say he does not. If the hon. the Minister of Finance, in levying income tax, has this power, this privilege, i.e. the right to levy a uniform tax on the whole of the Republic, then surely it is to the benefit of the Republic of South Africa to avoid fluctuations. The Opposition has repeatedly complained about inflation. We are blamed for it. It is repeatedly said that we are not taking effective measures in respect of capital expenditure on the part of the Government. But here the opportunity is being created for the hon. the Minister of Finance to exercise greater control in times of inflation by introducing uniform income tax throughout the country.

Our growth in South Africa, as far as the Central Government is concerned, as far as the provinces and the rendering of services are concerned, should be closely related to our national product. As soon as one does not take this into account, one is on dangerous ground. If you underspend, you will build up a backlog. If you overspend, it must necessarily lead to inflation. This legislation will be one of the most important fiscal measures to give South Africa stability as far as its economic position is concerned.

Moreover, as far as efficiency is concerned, this legislation offers the opportunity of introducing a more or less uniform rate of taxation for all people throughout the Republic, in whatever province, and is this not a good thing? Must we not break down this provincialism? [Interjections] Sir, I love my province. I was born in my province, but I do not want to speak contemptuously of another province. I do not want to say that some province or other does not provide its people with the services my province is providing. I believe the entire Republic of South Africa is entitled to uniform provision of services, and not only provision of services, but also as far as rates are concerned. Is it not fair that rates should be levied on more or less the same basis by the provinces? And this statement that the provinces now have no powers at all to collect funds is not correct. This legislation provides sufficient budgeting scope so that the provinces may, with sound judgment and with an expert approach, make use of these tax measures.

Sir, the consequences and results of this legislation are going to give the provinces of South Africa security, are going to make it possible for them to continue with the enormous task on which they are engaged. It is a pity that the Opposition has used this opportunity of sowing suspicion against this Bill. I want to tell them that after the Second Reading, in which that side of the House said nasty and personal things of this side, such as “the power struggle of this Government”, “at the mercy of the Minister of Finance”, as the hon. member for Parktown put it, and that we were becoming an autocratic government, their own newspapers hardly reacted to their arguments. Yesterday in the Committee Stage I noticed that practically nothing was said and today, during the Third Reading, I sensed, and I say this with all respect, that we could not agree with that side of the House from an economic point of view or from the point of view of efficiency. This legislation will serve the interests of and will be to the advantage of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the closing words of the hon. member for Rustenburg were to the effect that he believes that this Bill will be of benefit and of great service to the Republic of South Africa. I want to throw that back in his teeth and say it will be a service to the Nationalist Party only because this Bill has been introduced not for economic reasons, as that hon. member has tried to show, but for purely political reasons. We are faced today with a Bill which is finally emasculating the provincial councils. We are finally being left with nothing more than talking shops. As I said during the Second Reading, it is time this Government came out into the open and stopped calling the provincial councils elected bodies, and referred to them as just another department of state. What powers are left to them now that this Bill is going through its final stage? No longer do they have the power to tax. Any legislative body without the power to tax is not a legislative body at all.

What about overtaxing in Natal?

I shall deal with the question of overtaxing in a moment. Such a body becomes merely a stooge of the body which provides the finance. In this case the provincial councils are going to become the stooges of the Nationalist Party. For all the rude remarks of the hon. member for Rustenburg about the hon. member for South Coast …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “rude”.

I withdraw the word, Sir. I should, however, like to refer to the snide remarks of the hon. member for Rustenhurg about the hon. member for South Coast. Let me say that we in Natal are proud of our difference. It was not necessary for him to refer to the different flag under which my hon. friend moves. It is not necessary for his neighbour to refer sneeringly to our Royal Agricultural Society. We are proud of that and it is part of our heritage, as I have told him repeatedly both inside and outside of this House. The hon. member spoke about doing a service to the Republic, but the biggest disservice of all that is being done here is the abrogation of the spirit of the Republican Constitution Act. Embodied in that Act is the principle of unity with diversity. Sir, members on that side do not know what that means. As I have said, this is a purely political measure. It is nothing more than an extension of the political philosophy of that side of the House, which is one of centralization, of domination and of control from one centre. It is time they came out into the open and admitted this, because this Bill is merely the confirmation of what we have feared and suspected for so many years, namely that it is the intention of that side of the House to do away with the provincial councils. Why have they bothered to do this. Sir? They are doing so because of one province only, namely Natal, which they have not been able to dominate.

That is not so.

Yes, now I have got it! The hon. member for Rustenburg admits it. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will also admit it, as well as the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who for so many years served Natal. The hon. member tried to justify the statement that this has been brought about because of the “economic explosion”, as he put it, which took place after the Republic was created in 1961, but that is complete and total nonsense. This has nothing to do with financial considerations. It is purely political.

There is also the other aspect that this is now going to give rise to a uniform taxation over the whole of the Republic, but is this necessary? Once again I come back to the Republican Constitution. It was never anticipated that everything should be uniform throughout the whole of this Republic and that the differences which existed between the different provinces should disappear. I am sure that I am as proud of Natal as that hon. member is of the Transvaal. These differences exist and they were recognized, but this Nationalist Party does not want to recognize them.

I once again wish, at this stage of the proceedings on this Bill, to register my protest and the protest of this side of the House against the arrogant attitude of this Nationalist Cabinet. We are faced today with the situation where the hon. the Minister of Finance on the 31st March introduced his Budget into this House. In that Budget he made provision for what is provided for in this Bill today. He did not first wait for this legislation to be presented to this House and for it to be accepted by this House. He decided on his own, or in consultation with the Cabinet, to ignore Parliament, to ignore the functions of Parliament and to go ahead to implement something for which they were going to introduce a Bill at a later dale. I hear mutterings on the other side and I want to ask those members whether they are prepared to abrogate and to give up their powers as members of this House. Are they prepared to give everything up to the Cabinet? They do not answer. This Bill amounts to dictatorship. If not dictatorship by one man, then by one body of people, namely a Cabinet which is appointed by the ruling party. This Cabinet decides everything.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Does he realize that it is the 26th May today, and that his party has been in the wilderness for 23 years now?

I do not see how this question is really relevant. I am fully aware of the fact that today is an occasion in South Africa, but I do not believe it is an occasion for rejoicing. I believe it is a very sad day. In reply I want to ask that hon. member whether he is proud of the fact that after 23 years of power that Government is today faced with the position in Port Elizabeth with regard to the motor industry in particular? I hope he is proud of that. The hon. member’s question was obviously designed to draw attention away from the attack I am making, namely where I say that this Government is culpable of disregarding the function of this House. Surely it is only right that this legislation should have been brought to this House first before provision was made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget which was presented on the 31st March. I want to say again that if hon. members on that side of the House are prepared to abrogate their powers in favour of the Cabinet we on this side are not prepared to. I want to register the strongest protest at the manner in which this has been done this year.

The hon. member for Rustenburg said that the provinces will now know that they will definitely get their subsidies.

Of course!

On what basis? On what basis are they going to get subsidies? The hon. member went on to say that provinces will now be able to plan ahead for five years. On what basis? How can the hon. member say this? There is no provision for this in the Bill. What is provided for in this Bill? What is provided here is that the Administrator of each province …

You have not read the White Paper.

Do not talk to me about the White Paper, because what we are debating is the Bill and what is contained therein. The White Paper is merely ancillary and has no force or effect whatsoever. What do we find in the Bill? We find that the Administrator will have to present his Budget to the hon. the Minister of Finance in which he will have to justify certain expenditure and explain certain income that he might receive. Who has the final say? Not the province or the provincial council, the elected representatives of the people of that province, but the Minister of Finance himself.

Who is he?

He happens to be a Nationalist at the moment.

He is elected by everyone.

He is not elected. How can the hon. the Minister of Mines make such an inane statement in this House? I really credited the hon. the Minister of Mines with more intelligence than that. With respect, the hon. the Minister of Finance was never elected as such by the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is quite obvious that the party opposite does not like this sort of talk in this House.

However, let us come back to the question of the Budget of the provincial council, The Administrator will have to present to the hon. the Minister of Finance his Budget and he will have to justify it. The hon. the Minister of Finance, on his own, arbitrarily, without reference to the provincial council, the elected representatives of the people of that particular province, can decide how much he will give them. There is no question, as the hon. member for Winburg said during the Second Reading debate, of a scientific formula on which this subsidy will be based. It is not even in the White Paper. It will again be a case of the Administrators coming hat in hand, as they do not wear caps, to the hon. the Minister of Finance, asking for money.

There are certain questions which were put to the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading debate which were not answered. The one which was most important and which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not answer was: What will happen to the provinces responsibility now to repay their capital expenditure on loan account to date? How will this be financed? The provinces owe hundreds of millions of rands in loan amounts which have been raised for capital expenditure. The hon. member for Salt River put this Question pertinently to the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading debate. We have had no reply to that question. This is very pertinent to this debate. There are other questions as well which also have not been answered. I do not think it is necessary to go any further. I am sure that we on this side of the House have made the point clear that we are sincerely opposed to this matter not on economic grounds, as the hon. member for Rustenburg has tried to claim with regard to the hon. member for Parktown, but upon political grounds because I repeat, this is not an economic measure; it is a political measure.

Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the many sweeping statements made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, I want to refer to one very important fact which emerged in his speech. Before doing so, however, I want to say to the hon. member that I refuse to conduct a debate on the basis of “I say this is the position and the other man says it is not”. I am prepared to listen to a reasoned, motivated argument. I am prepared to make an attempt to reply to it. But merely rattling off our statements after another is not debating. I did in fact reply to the question of the hon. member for Salt River which, according to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, I had not replied to.

But, as I have said, one important fact emerged in the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. It is something which I suspected all along. In this fact lies the tragic reason for this opposition we have had to this measure over the past few days. Before this White Paper was tabled, the United Party had been working up steam in order to oppose this measure. The hon. member told us that, before this White Paper had been tabled, they had suspected that the Government would take steps to break down the provincial authorities. The steps which they suspected we would take in order to break down the provincial administrations are not contained in this White Paper. It is concerned only with the taxation powers of the provinces. They are not being abolished as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District wants to suggest. What is being done here, is that the taxation powers of the provinces are being considerably reduced, and very good reasons can be advanced for this.

What is lacking on the part of the Opposition is that they have no alternative idea as to what should be done to solve this problem, which has existed for 60 years already. This problem also existed when that party was governing this country. They could not solve this problem effectively either. I know what the function of an opposition is and I know to what extent one can expect an opposition to put forward alternative proposals or ideas with the means and the instruments at its disposal. In this case the Opposition had the reports of the commissions at its disposal, and it has had this White Paper at its disposal for weeks. Since they are so bitterly opposed to this idea and to the Government’s proposals, one would have expected them to produce something more positive than just this negative attitude they have adopted. As far as I have followed the debate, they have offered no alternative. They have not really rejected this formula indicated in the White Paper. This formula is indicated in reasonable detail in the White Paper, and it is indicated how it will be applied. Furthermore, it is still being elaborated on for the use of the people who will be concerned with it. The hon. members have not really rejected this formula; if they have done so, I am not aware of it. The hon. member for Parktown did not do so, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District denied by implication that a worthwhile formula was in fact contained in the White Paper. If this is the standpoint of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, I cannot help him any further.

I should like to give the hon. member for Parktown an assurance. I have been given the assurance that Prof. Schumann, the chairman of the commission, to whom the hon. member turned for assistance, was kept informed of the development of the proposals envisaged by the Government. This assurance has been given to me and I accept it as such. Furthermore, the assurance has been given to me that Prof. Schumann is perfectly happy with the situation as it has developed; in fact, he agrees that in the light of the circumstances of today, we are taking the right direction. According to those hon. members, this proposal of the Government to withdraw certain taxation powers from the provinces is in conflict with the findings of the Schumann Commission. This is true, but hon. members opposite by no means agree with all the recommendations of the Schumann Commission either. They objected most strenuously in this House to the implementation of certain recommendations made by the Schumann Commission. Therefore, if they have the right to disagree with the Schumann Commission surely this side of the House also has the right to disagree with certain recommendations made by the commission. The Government has exercised that right and has also done so in respect of the unanimous recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. The Franzsen Commission can also be regarded as an expert commission in this field. I am bearing in mind what the hon. member’s objections in that regard were during his Second Reading speech, but I have already replied to them to a large extent.

I want to say something to the hon. member for Parktown. As a country develops economically and especially as it develops in the industrial field and becomes an industrial country, it becomes increasingly important that the Minister of Finance, whoever he may be, should apply fiscal measures in order to try to influence economic tendencies, in whatever direction those tendencies may be moving. This is why I indicated in the Second Reading debate that, as far as I could foresee the position, this state of affairs, where two hands were in one purse could not remain for all time, because eventually it would have to lead, if it was not the case, already, to very undesirable tensions. It would also have to lead to the Minister of Finance, the Government and by implication this House having to say to the other hand; “You may go so far and no further”. In other words, it would have meant that at some stage or other its taxation powers, the powers about which the hon. member for Parktown is so concerned, would have had to be curtailed in such a way that they would in reality have had no further significance as such.

The hon. member for Parktown said that the relationship between the provincial authorities, the elected representatives and their people, would be lost. I know the hon. member for Parktown has been in public life for many years, but so have I. I know that the relationship between governing body and subject—let us say voters in this case—is not determined in the first place by the taxation one levies, by the way in which one levies one’s taxation or by how wisely or unwisely it is done. It is determined by the service rendered to that community by its elected representatives, I do not want to return to the Second Reading debate, but there we again had the position that this side of the House was convinced that it would be possible to render that service more effectively now, because there would be more certainly about the availability of the means The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had serious doubts about the certainty, the availability of those means. Apart from the fact that it is stated in the White Paper, the Bill determines what the guide-lines are to be. Those requirements must be determined. They will be determined on an economic, scientific basis, as they should be. After those justified requirements have been determined on an economic, scientific basis, the Bill provides that those means shall then be provided, if not from their own sources, then by means of provision, by this House. It is wrong to say that the provinces are being left entirely to the mercy of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will still be subject to this Bill and to this House. Every year he must bring his proposals here in respect of the amount of funds to be voted to the Provinces, as they have been voted in the past. The final say over those funds will still rest with this Parliament, and nowhere else.

The hon. member for Parktown said the Government had deviated from its original terms of reference. Let us assume that the Government has in fact deviated from them. I do not want to go into that or argue about it. What is wrong with it if the Government has in fact deviated from its terms of reference to the commission? What is wrong with it if a government, after having considered the recommendations and report of a commission of inquiry it appointed and, in addition, having instituted an inquiry of its own over a period of three years, comes to other conclusions? Surely there is nothing on earth wrong with that,

The hon. member for Parktown asked me specifically whether I had meant that the provinces had influenced our fiscal policy in the past. I cannot give him a definite reply in that regard—it may or may not be the case. However, what I can say to the hon. member is something which I already said to him a short while ago, namely that we would be creating a situation there which would be potentially explosive for the future. I want to content myself with that.

Furthermore, the hon. member said that “we have to cut our cloak according to our cloth”. What is of importance here is that the cloth is the need and that we have to adjust our expenditure to the need, and this need is being determined scientifically, no matter how much hon. members opposite argue against it. In so far as the term “scientific” may be applied to the economy—and it can be done—I cannot see how one can come closer to a scientific approach than is done in this White Paper.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—97: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F,; Cruywagen, W. A,; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M,; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J, A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A,; Rossouw, W. J. C,; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J, J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J,; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G.D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L, E. D.; Wood, L. F,

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of the amendments proposed in this Bill, probably do not require much explanation. The most important amendments relate to the proposed abolition of the State Procurement Board. I shall come back to that later on.

I want to refer, in the first place, to the amendments found in clauses 2, 7 and 9, where it is being proposed that the expression “movable State property” be substituted for the expression “State stores”. As the Act reads at the moment, one of the powers of the State Tender Board is to arrange for the disposal of State stores. In this regard I must take hon. members back to the past. As hon. members know, the body which we know today as the State Tender Board is actually a successor to the former Union Tender Board. The functions and duties of the latter board are to a large extent still being carried out by the State Tender Board at present. The expression “State stores”, as it occurs in the statutory provisions relating to the State Tender Board, was actually taken over from statutory requirements of the past. In the past the former body arranged for the sale of movable State property, whereas at the moment the present State Tender Board is carrying out that function. However, all the State property disposed of in that manner, cannot be included in the narrower concept of “stores”. In general and also in the Public Service the word “stores” has a restrictive meaning. Up to now no problems have arisen in this regard, but in order to remove any doubt and to prevent problems from in fact arising in cases where the State Tender Board arranges for the disposal of other movable State property which cannot really be classified as stores, it is being deemed desirable that the expression “State stores” be substituted by the expression “movable State property”. This does not constitute any change or extension of the powers of the State Tender Board, but merely confirms functions which are already being carried out.

In the second place, I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the amendments proposed in clause 3 in regard to the power of the State Tender Board to delegate its powers. Section 5 (2) of the principal Act makes provision for the delegation of this board’s powers to a variety of other bodies. As the activities of the State cover the whole country and needs for supplies and services may arise everywhere and sometimes urgently, it is essential for the State Tender Board to delegate its power of procurement on specific conditions and within limits. Purchases by Government departments and the tender transactions by the State Tender Board and the State buyer coupled with such purchases, cover a very wide field of supplies and services. The delegation of powers by the State Tender Board to the State buyer, committees, heads of Government departments and other officers and employees, is therefore inevitably aimed at causing the machinery of State to function smoothly. Some of the powers delegated by the State Tender Board to the State buyer and heads of departments, must, for practical reasons, be redelegated by the two subordinates, as they, too, cannot exercise all the delegated powers personally. In cases where the delegated powers of the State Tender Board had been redelegated in this manner, the board did not have any control over such redelegations. Doubts arose as to the legality of this procedure, and the law advisers expressed the opinion that, as the relevant section provides at the moment, the board was not in a position to delegate its powers to any holder of a post or a rank who was unknown to that board.

These powers must be delegated to a person who is known to the board. Nor is there any provision in terms of which re-delegation may take place. However, if in terms of the present provisions the board itself had to make all the delegations to officers, employees or persons, it would render impossible the effective functioning of the board, the State buyer’s office and departments. Whereas in many cases departments consist of divisions, sections, regional offices and often remote offices throughout the Republic, it is essential that delegations be made to a large number of officials. Consequently it is essential that the Act be amended so as to enable the board to delegate its powers to specific persons as well as holders of posts designated by the board, and to authorize such persons or holders of posts to delegate, in turn, those powers to other persons or holders of posts also designated by the board. The responsibility of the board will not be prejudiced by this, for it will still have control over the ranks to whom powers may be delegated or redelegated, whereas it will retain the right to withdraw or amend delegations or to amend decisions taken in terms of delegated powers.

Since delegations have already been made on this basis, it is being proposed that the relevant amendments be effected with retrospective effect.

That brings me, lastly, to amendments in regard to the abolition of the State Procurement Board, as found in clauses I and 4 to 10. During the Second Reading of the Armaments Amendment Bill, the Minister of Defence explained that after the three procurement boards, i.e. the State Tender Board, the State Procurement Board and the Armaments Board, had been functioning side by side for more than two years, investigations had revealed that the statutory procurement powers of the three boards in question involved overlapping and duplication of functions. Existing statutory provisions provide that the Ministers concerned may arrange for functions to be defined on an administrative basis. This was in fact done, but it has now been found that, whereas thousands of different commodities and services have to be dealt with, it is impossible to lay down an absolutely clear and specified apportionment of procurement functions. It has accordingly been decided to proceed on a more coordinated basis. Furthermore, the conviction has been expressed that two procurement boards will still be able to exercise the procurement functions for the Defence Force and other Government departments in an effective and satisfactory manner. It has therefore been decided to abolish the State Procurement Board with effect from 1st July, 1971. As from that date its functions will be divided between the Armaments Board and the State Tender Board. The definition of functions between the latter two boards will be clearer and easier. Furthermore, it will in future be possible, because of reciprocal representation, for more effective co-ordination to take place.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to express on this occasion a word of thanks and appreciation to the members of the State Procurement Board and, in particular, to the chairman, Mr. G. P. Jooste, who have been carrying out their duties in such an excellent manner.

This Bill follows naturally on the Armaments Amendment Bill which we dealt with a short while ago. As the hon. the Deputy Minister informed the House, this Bill basically provides for the abolition of the State Procurement Board. It has been apparent to us for some considerable time—going back to the time when the third body was brought into being—that the Tender Board, the Armament Board and the State Procurement Board were really not all necessary. It seems that this is the conclusion come to also by the commission of inquiry. Consequently we are in agreement that this board ought to be abolished and that in future all supplies for Defence and other departments of State be taken care of by the Tender Board and the Armament Board. In other words, we support this measure.

We are a little concerned about clause 3, with which the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt fairly fully. This clause, as also the corresponding clause in the Armaments Amendment Bill, widens greatly the scope of delegation. This clause does two additional things in this respect. Firstly, it delegates to a post instead of to a person. This is essential because one is not really worried about who the specific incumbent of a post is. Secondly, the people to whom power is now delegated are given the right to redelegate. From a practical point of view this is probably necessary. As the Deputy Minister pointed out we are dealing with a very large area here and, hence, it is necessary from time to lime that a re-delegation takes place. However, what we would like to ask for is an undertaking that the control will not be lost through these delegations–in other words, that the Tender Board will remain master of its destiny and will always retain control over these delegations. We know it can revoke them from time to time, if it so wishes, but we do want the assurance that we will have control over the delegations and that those to whom authority has been delegated should report back to the Tender Board so that the Tender Board may know what is going on. Subject to that assurance being forthcoming we support this Bill.

I appreciate the support of the Opposition in this regard. Delegation is always a difficult matter. But good administration, be it in the public sector or in the private sector, depends on the judicious delegation of powers. In this Bill the State Tender Board retains the power to exercise control over re-delegations as well. I do not think we have any reason at this stage to believe that the State Tender Board will not exercise that control adequately. However, if it should appear that the control is not being exercised effectively, it will in fact come to light and it will be possible to take steps.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

APPROPRIATION BILL

(Committee Stage resumed)

Revenue Votes Nos. 26.—“Justice”, R21 727 000, and 27. — “Prisons", R36 590 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 12.— “Justice”, R717000, and 13,—“Prisons", R550 000 (contd.):

Before proceeding to reply to hon. members, I should like to correct something by which I could perhaps have conveyed a wrong impression to the House yesterday. I thought that we were mainly discussing short-term prisoners at the time, and I said that 42 per cent of our prison population were there for contravening control measures. The real state of affairs is that the 42 per cent refers to all short-term prisoners, i.e. those serving prison sentences of up to four months. We arrived at that figure after we had examined roughly 109 000 cases. I just wanted to straighten out this point.

The hon. member for Westdene read out here several testimonials given by visitors from elsewhere. I am grateful to him for having done so. All of these are people of note, and therefore I am pleased about the fine testimonials they gave us. The hon. member also pointed out, and this is also the standpoint we take, that a person does not go to prison in order to be punished there. His punishment is the fact that he is being deprived of his freedom. Consequently he does not go to prison for the purpose of being punished there. That should be our approach.

The hon. member for Musgrave asked for a commission to investigate compensation for innocent victims of crimes. Well, I want to point out that we are not a welfare state. For that reason I find the hon. member’s suggestion unthinkable. The victims to whom he referred, can institute civil actions. If the State had to accept liability for the damage suffered by every victim of a crime. I do not know where we would eventually be landed.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to the crusade which was being conducted against capital punishment and the course this crusade was adopting. Apparently the hon. member has made a careful study of this matter, and therefore I do not want to say much about it. The leader of this crusade is Dr. Barend van Niekerk.

It is striking to see in what large lettering the name “Barend” is written—it must necessarily be Barend van Niekerk in order to make the thing acceptable as coming from the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population. Those are the tactics which are being used. But I shall leave it at that. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion. Dr. Van Niekerk is therefore welcome to carry on with his crusade. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we do not see our way clear to abolishing capital punishment.

The hon. member for Durban Point, who always makes such a big fuss, spoke twice, but in actual fact he said nothing. Once again he tried to poke fun at the proposed conditions. He knows just as well as I do that the proposed conditions were published for the very purpose of eliciting criticism, for the purpose of hearing what people think of them. The obvious course for him to have followed, was to go to the National Liquor Board and to say, “This and that are my criticism on these conditions.” He should also remember that the regulations published by the National Liquor Board were to a very large extent taken from the existing conditions of the various liquor districts, and whether they are eventually going to be included or excluded is quite a different matter. That can only be decided upon once these conditions have been examined and the final submission has been made.

The hon. member also alluded to the bilingualism aspect. I can tell him beforehand that that will be included. As long as I administer the Liquor Act and as long as I bear the responsibility in respect of hotels, I shall see to it that there is on the premises a person who can serve every person in the one language or the other.

I said that it was being exaggerated.

It is not being exaggerated at all. There may be people who make themselves unpleasant; there may be others who ignore this too easily. Personally I would insist on it, simply because I like being served in Afrikaans, if it is convenient, and the same goes for an English-speaking person who wants to be served in English. There must be a White person who is capable of doing this. What happened in my own home town, should not happen, i.e. where the woman behind the counter could not understand Afrikaans; the man could not do so either. A Black man, who was sweeping up there, was then asked to hear what the guest wanted. This happened in my own home town. And that I shall not allow. Even if there were only one condition left, it would be that regulation.

Would you reply to my argument in regard to dual control?

Yes, I shall come to that.

Was the objection that the interpreter was Black?

Yes, that was the objection. A White person entering a hotel as a guest, is entitled to be served by a White person either in English or in Afrikaans.

Sir, the question of dual control was raised here. I just want to say that the control that exists and the position in which our hotels are today, a position in terms of which no fewer than 1 390 hotels out of approximately 1 550 have already been classified, are not attributable to the speeches made by the hon. member for Durban Point and, to a very large extent, not to the services of the Hotel Board either; these things were effected by the National Liquor Board. I still remember how that hon. member rose in his bench, and predicted that fewer than 100 hotels would be classified; I still remember how he predicted that they would go bankrupt one after the other, and I remember how the former member for Von Brandis, the former Chief Whip on that side, launched here an attack in that regard one evening. But we persevered; the National Liquor Board and I persevered with obligingness and circumspection, but also with firmness, and, as I have been saying, the result is that at this stage 1 390 hotels have already been classified. In respect of a few the classification has not quite been completed as yet. For that reason I shall not permit disparaging references to be made here to the National Liquor Board when the hon. member pleads for “dual control", as he calls it. The National Liquor Board has done a wonderful job, and I have every confidence in its members.

As regards the question of whether control over hotels should now be transferred to the Hotel Board or whether it should remain with the National Liquor Board, I personally have, strangely enough, not yet received such a request from the hotel industry itself, from Fedhasa. I have only heard this from the hon. member. I do not know whether he is the official mouthpiece of Fedhasa. But Fedhasa has not yet approached me with such a request, not personally. As regards the idea that control of the hotels be transferred to the National Liquor Board, there one is faced with a difficult position.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has not received Fedhasa’s memorandum of 24th March in regard to this matter? In that memorandum they said, “This overlap is regarded as unnecessary and undesirable.” This is the overlap between the Hotel Board and the National Liquor Board.

No, that has not been brought to my attention as yet. So far they have not approached me personally.

Would you consider something of that nature?

I read in the newspaper that at this congress they now had an intention of approaching me. Once they do, it will be considered. But since it has still to be considered, and since it has to receive the Government’s attention, I want to say here now—and I want to be very specific in what I say—that as far as this proposal is concerned, i.e. whether the time has arrived for the control of the hotels to be handed over to the Hotel Board, it goes without saying that this is a matter to which I cannot give a decisive reply now. There are various facets to the matter, and whether it will be at all possible to divorce from each other the control over hotels and the provision of liquor by hotels, is still an open question. As the hon. member said, the chairman of the National Liquor Board is also a member of the Hotel Board, and at this moment the necessary liaison between the Hotel Board and the National Liquor Board does therefore exist. The matter will have to receive the Government’s attention when the time is ripe for it. At the moment all the hotels have not yet been classified. That is the position, and that is why I cannot give the hon. member a decisive reply; and, as long as it is the duty and also the instructions of the Minister of Justice to control hotels and lay down standards, he should not think that he is going to convince me in this House by disparaging the National Liquor Board and passing cutting remarks on the Minister of Justice.

What percentage of the hotels have already been classified?

The only ones that have not yet been classified, are the 73 which are still in the process of being classified. They have been included in that figure of 1 390, which I mentioned. Seventy-three hotels are in the process of being classified, but they have been granted an extension of time; 71 have switched to wine and beer, and 89 have closed down and are therefore no longer in existence. In other words, out of a total of 1 550, 89 have closed down and 71 have switched to wine and beer. This was more or less the figure we furnished right at the beginning. We said at the time that it would be more or less in the vicinity of 100.

But what about the arguments I advanced? You should not merely disparage.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus expressed his satisfaction in regard to prison farms. He pleaded for more prison farms to be purchased by us. I am in complete agreement with him in this regard. I just want to state what farms of that nature we already have. In the Transvaal we have five farms, namely those at Barberton, Baviaanspoort, Zonderwater, Leeuwkop and Nigel. Then we also have the following prisons which are large enough for agricultural production: Voortrekkerhoogte, Modderbee, Standerton, Heidelberg and Klerksdorp. In the Orange Free State we have three, namely Groenpunt, Goedemoed and Grootvlei. In Natal there are three farms, namely Kandaspunt, Waterval and Sevontein. In addition, there is a prison at Pietermaritzburg, where there is enough land for agricultural production. In the Cape we have the prison farms Victor Verster and Brandvlei, near Worcester. Then there are the following prisons, where the land is large enough for agricultural production: Annandale, St. Albans, George, East London and Worcester. In the Transkei we have two prison farms, namely Bizweni and Wellington. In addition another two such farms have been purchased, namely Koraansdrif, near Addo and Kirkwood, and Spring Valley, bordering on Rooigrond. In other words, I agree that prison farms are the obvious solution, but it is not always so easy to obtain the right type of property. Wherever possible it is in fact departmental policy to purchase and develop farms.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West referred to the use of mechanization and computers in regard to deeds. Recently we saw a demonstration in this regard. He wanted to know whether this was not going to be detrimental to the profession. He also wanted to know whether the smaller deeds registries would not disappear, and whether the same system would be introduced in the offices of the Master of the Supreme Court. This new system will not be detrimental to the work of the deeds registries and the information which is obtainable there. Conveyancers will, instead, benefit by it, for the delays which result because of the examination of deeds, will now be something of the past. One will pay one’s money, press a button and obtain all the necessary information. It will even be possible to obtain from the deeds registry certain parts of documents which are required, such as the conditions, etc. It will be possible simply to add those parts to the first or last pages, and the entire document will then be recognized as being authentic. In other words, they will no longer have to be examined. I think that the whole system can only benefit the profession tremendously.

Now I come to the extent to which the smaller registries will be affected. As far as I can see, it will not affect our registries, for the conveyancing will still have to take place there. The registrar will still be responsible for it. Only the information itself will be kept at a central bureau. In this respect there are, of course, two places which are implicated to a certain extent, namely Vryburg and King William’s Town. As far as Vryburg is concerned, I would be misleading the House if I said that the registry there would be retained. This is not so because of the introduction of this system, but because of an enquiry which took place on a previous occasion. The commission which conducted the enquiry, made, a recommendation to this effect. As far as King William’s Town is concerned, I shall not say that the office will remain there, but that area, namely the Eastern Cape, will definitely have a deeds registry. Whether the registry is going to be in King William’s Town, Grahamstown or even Port Elizabeth, I cannot say at the moment, but that part of the country will definitely have a deeds registry at its disposal. At this stage the idea is not to involve Masters of the Supreme Court in this matter.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Florida on his contribution. He made a constructive and solid contribution to this debate. One can see that he was a prosecutor and knows how to put his case. It is also clear that he examined the report of the department very carefully. He also expressed criticism by saying that 512 posts, which had been created, had not been filled. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member overlooked the fact that the Department of Justice took over the deeds division on 1st April, 1970. We inherited this division with all its posts and vacancies. Seen as a whole, the position is that in 1970 the number of resignations by officers exceeded the figure for 1969 by 14. However, the number of persons recruited, showed an increase of 35, and the net gain was therefore 21, if the resignations are taken into account. Then we also have the position, just as is the case in other departments, that persons joining our service have to undergo military training. These persons receive their full remuneration whilst receiving their training, something which is not done by all employers. Once such a person has met his obligation to the State, he resigns. That is one of the main reasons for the number of resignations. However, the hon. member rightly said that the Department of Justice was sui generis, Generally speaking the employees of the Department of Justice are qualified persons, and this very fact results in there being open to them so many more spheres in which they can qualify themselves. They are much sought after by other employers and by other departments. Moreover, they are sought after by the private sector, and if need be, they can also go into business on their own. It is mainly for this reason that there are so many resignations from this department. The hon. member also referred to public prosecutors, who were being inundated with work to such an extent. That is true, but we are trying to make their work easier by means of the channelling courts, to which I referred yesterday. However, it is also true that a person who, as a public prosecutor, has gone through this mill and who subsequently goes in for any other career in the department, is one of our best equipped and most competent officials.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal for the fine words he expressed in respect of the Department of Justice and also the Department of Prisons. He himself is an ex-official of the Department of Justice, and he knows what he is talking about.

The hon. member of Umhlatuzana wanted to know whether we could not appoint a commission to enquire into the smooth functioning of our administration of justice. I think his words were “to streamline the administration of justice”. I really do not believe a commission of enquiry to be necessary for this purpose. We have all the material and the facilities for streamlining the department and especially the various offices as much as is at all possible. In other words, I am of the opinion that we have more knowledge of this matter than any commission of inquiry would ever be able to gain. I am saying this without implying that we are so clever that we cannot be taught anything. The hon. member also wanted to know whether it was possible to cause trials to take place in the evenings. I may tell the House that this matter is receiving attention at the moment and that it is quite likely that we shall adopt this course in the near future. The hon. member also referred to communion wine with reference to the case of Father Long. In the manual for the prison service it is being laid down that Holy Communion, or a similar act of faith or any other similar act, may be celebrated, provided that in cases where it is customary to serve wine, it shall be replaced by unfermented beverages or fruit juices. This is a fixed rule in the prison service. What is more, these rules are submitted to every person designated by a church to serve a prison on behalf of that church. On 22nd August, 1961, Father Long was appointed as a spiritual worker amongst members of the Catholic faith on Robben Island. On 27th October, 1961, he indicated that he undertook to perform his duties within the framework of the Prisons Act, and that he was aware of what he was permitted to do in this respect. However, Father Long did not abide by these prescribed rules: consequently the wine was taken away from him. This prohibition in respect of wine applies to all prisons throughout the country, It is endorsed and complied with by all denominations. In this particular case it is a great pity that the person concerned did not abide by it.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Jeppes in regard to the dissatisfaction he expressed at the delays taking place in regard to legal aid, and the small amount voted in respect of legal aid. The hon. member also spoke about the question of “bugging devices”. He wanted to know whether I, as the Minister of Justice, could not do something about prohibiting these devices.

I referred to private detectives.

This is a thorny matter. How can one forbid a detective to use a certain device which is in fact available to other people? These devices are, as the hon. member said, available in plentiful supply. How can one forbid a private detective to use such devices? As regards the document he gave me, I may say that the two persons to whom reference is made in it, were convicted of crimen injuria. They can also be convicted of trespassing. In addition, a civil action has been instituted against them. I really fail to see how the Minister of Justice can do anything in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister recall that I asked him whether the department could not look into the question of regulating and perhaps, licensing the practice by persons as private detectives as a profession in the social structure?

I made notes of the hon. member’s words while he was speaking, and if my notes are incorrect, I apologize. What the hon. member has proposed, as it now becomes clear to me, is a thorny matter. Private detectives are in actual fact nothing but witnesses. Now, I really cannot see how we can license these persons as private detectives. But, in any case, if it will satisfy the hon. member, I want to tell him that we shall bear in mind the suggestion put forward by him.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central rightly pointed out that these delays were not caused by the advocates. He also pointed out that advocates, just as was the case with medical practitioners, were making their contributions in the administration of justice in assisting needy people. Then the hon. member proceeded to point out that there was no such thing as political prisoners in this country. The one we had, is in Kimberley now.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the distribution of wine. There is concern among the wine farmers. Drought conditions have prevailed for a few years, and as a result the 1969-’70 crop was a small one. There was actually a liquor shortage, but as a result of the good rains last year, this year’s crop was a good one and there is consequently going to be a surplus. There are a few factors giving rise to this concern. A few years ago, when the supplying of White liquor to Bantu was legalized, it was expected that the requirements would be extensive. In truth this was, however, not the case. This was one of the factors contributing to the fact that the consumption of liquor did not increase on a large scale. Today I want to advocate the promotion of the supply of natural wines. The amended liquor legislation was passed in 1964, and there were great expectations about an increase in the consumption of liquor. In the Transvaal, however, the increase from 1964 to 1970 in the consumption of natural wine was less than 300 gallons. In the Cape Province the increase was greater. The supplying of liquor to the Bantu was, therefore, not really a factor promoting the consumption of wine.

Then there is another factor that causes us concern, and that is the possible entry of England into the E.E.C. England is one of South Africa’s largest liquor purchasers. In fact, 45 per cent of our exports are sent to England. The wine farmers and the K.W.V. expect that Britain’s entry will cause difficulties. Another factor causing concern is that the liquor wholesale trade is today virtually a monopoly. For all practical purposes the wholesale trade is today in the hands of two companies. The one company distributes wine and the other distributes brandy.

In my opinion there are too many restrictions on the distribution of natural wine. There are too many bottlenecks. The practice of bottle stores having to distribute the wine is an expensive one. I do not think that it fits in with the pattern of development in South Africa any longer.

Since 1948 a new pattern has developed in respect of residential areas for the various population groups in South Africa. In my view the supplying of liquor according to the old pattern, i.e. by way of the old bottle store system, is an extremely expensive process. In fact, in the past it was, and today it still is, one of the most highly sought-after businesses. Today everyone would like to own a bottle store, but it is an expensive process.

The overall majority of the Coloured population specifically subscribes to the highly sought-after liquor pattern we would like to have in South Africa, i.e. that relating to the greater consumption of natural wine. I think that they are entitled to obtain that liquor in their own residential areas. It is true that the State and the department, by means of the Coloured Development Corporation, are supplying liquor to Coloureds in their own residential areas. However, I say that it is too slow a process because it must subscribe to the old and costly bottle store procedure. If we continue with this pattern of development and supply liquor as we have done in the past, it will take years and years before the Coloureds can be supplied with liquor in their residential areas. We are in fact, making it much more difficult for the Coloureds than for the Bantu. The fact is that the Bantu obtains his Bantu beer in his residential area—we do not supply this to the Coloured.

I should like to mention something to the Minister for his consideration. We have created a new pattern in South Africa. The supplying of liquor takes place according to the White voters’ roll and only male persons come into consideration. On that basis liquor licences are granted. We have entered upon a new era and created a Coloured voters’ roll, On that list we have placed 700 000 voters. Particularly as far as these natural wines are concerned, I think that those people ought to come into consideration as far as the supplying of liquor is concerned, so that they may obtain it in their own residential areas.

Are you referring to natural wines? *

Yes. If Coca Cola can be distributed so freely, I cannot see why such a burden must be placed on natural wines. I call it a burden, because it must be distributed by these expensive bottle stores.

In most of the towns and old urban areas these bottle stores established themselves in the main streets and main roads. It is becoming a particular nuisance here in the Boland towns. It gives rise to conditions that definitely do not promote good race relations. My plea is that the hon. the Minister should consider, particularly as far as the Coloured residential areas are concerned, granting them licences for supplying natural wines on a basis that will not be expensive, but will be such that they can obtain the wine easily, for example in restaurants and cafes. This could only be beneficial to good human and race relations. It would be a consolation to the wine farmers. There are too many people who lay claim to the support of the wine farmers. I see that the chairman of the Hotel Board states that the hotels cannot exist if the bottle stores are taken away from them. I do not think it fair of the hotel industry to also want to be a burden to the wine farmer.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister a few years ago introduced the Rill to abolish trial by jury in this country. One thing that he seemed to have retained a predilection for, was the function of a judge in a trial by jury. After all the evidence and arguments have been submitted, he then sums up to the jury. That is what he has done here, leaving us with ten minutes to reply to him. This is a debating chamber, not a court of law. It is a great pity that we are not able to have more time to answer and have a meaningful debate with this hon. Minister, especially after the half-answered and half-baked replies that we got from him in respect of the matters that were dealt with.

When it came to dealing with the question of interrogation under section 6 and the abuse of those powers, what a lame duck attitude do we have from this hon. Minister! It is a matter, apparently, of monumental unconcern to the Minister of Justice, whether the Police use the section 22 interrogation, where you have to go before a judge, who hears both sides, lays down the conditions of interrogation and, if necessary, if the person is wrongfully detained, can order his release, or whether they use section 6 interrogation where you are entirely detained in the discretion of the Police, under the conditions that they prescribe, and interrogated by them under this section. We had displayed here unconcern on the part of the hon. the Minister about what happens when people are interrogated under this section. We have come to a very sorry pass in this country when its Minister of Justice adopts such an attitude.

Also the hon. member for Prinshof, the heir apparent, asked why I raised this question under this Vote. He said that it was only because the Minister’s portfolio was mentioned in this section that I raised it here and not tinder the Police Vote. Why is the Minister's portfolio mentioned in this section? Why is it required by this section that the name and place of arrest must be given to this Minister and that reports must be made to him on why it is necessary to retain a person further? It is there because this Minister has some function to perform as Minister of Justice. Surely it is put there in order to afford some protection to these people. Surely the idea was that it ought not to be entirely in the hands of the Police. What is more, this hon. Minister himself proposed that section and included the reference in it to himself. Why did he do it? Did he do it just for “mossie”, just for his amusement? Surely it was included so as not to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the Police. Yet he has told us in this debate that as far as he is concerned, this whole matter is in the hands of the Police and he himself could not care a jot or tittle whether these persons are retained for interrogation after going to a judge, after a legal process of some sort, or whether they are not.

He tried to justify the action taken in 1967 and quoted from Hansard of that date. But what he did not say is that what that debate reflected was that the intention was to apply this section instead of the 1966 one to South-West Africa because there was doubt about whether the judge interrogation clause of 1966 would apply in South-West Africa in respect of those persons who went overseas to train for sabotage and other subversive activities before November, 1966. Then the hon. the Minister of Police spent all his time saying that he wanted this because of the particular situation on our borders. One of the other arguments he used was that you could not get all the facts and go to a judge within 14 days. But apparently he is quite happy that these people may be detained for interrogation without having the facts.

The Minister sneered at the hon. member for Pinelands for making the suggestion of instituting a tribunal to review the interrogation of detainees. The attitude of the hon. the Minister was that only if we, the United Party, came out and supported unlimited detention, would he consider the suggestion. A childish attitude from the Minister of Justice! It is like someone saying to another that he won’t play cricket with him unless he is allowed to bat first and if he is not allowed to bat first he is not going to allow the other to use his ball. It is a disgraceful attitude to adopt, especially in the light of the fact that as we see his duty in terms of section 6, he ought to have welcomed the suggestion of the hon. member for Pinelands. Well, the attitude of the hon. the Minister in this debate has only underscored the validity of the request of the hon. member. Obviously, if the hon. the Minister of Justice is not going to concern himself, then we need some tribunal that will concern itself.

When he dealt with prisons, the hon. the Minister again displayed the same sort of pussy-footed approach as he adopted towards the Justice Vote. When he talked about the fact that 42 per cent of the short-term prisoners were those convicted in terms of the influx regulations—a fact which he has since corrected to what I have said now—he appeared to be proud of the fact. That was the Government’s policy, he said, and that was why these people were in gaol. But he missed the very point why it was raised. The reason why it was raised was that there is a state of affairs developing where to some people imprisonment is no longer a deterrent. That is the reason why so many of them are in gaol. Gaol with them has become a sort of way of life, an accepted part of their lives. For these there is no longer any stigma attached to imprisonment.

I am asked, what are the alternatives? If one looks at the Police report laid upon our desks today, one will see that during the year under review there were 13 000 more prosecutions under the influx control regulations than the year before. What the Minister of Justice ought to be concerned about is that very point and as Minister of Prisons he should do something about it. Let me remind him that it was we who introduced influx control. But he must remember that we accepted the fact that the Bantu were a permanent part of our population and accordingly we extended exemptions from the pass laws to those Bantu who had shown responsibility, who were born here, who had worked for ten years continuously for one employer, and so forth. But this hon. Minister is allowing the policy of the Minister of Bantu Administration to undermine the justice and prison system we have in this country and for which he is responsible. He is just lying down under it.

Then the hon. the Minister displayed, as he seems to have done right throughout, a monumental ignorance of corrective training. I mentioned section 334ter specifically, the section about imprisonment for corrective training, imprisonment which is compulsory in certain circumstances, e.g. if a person has been convicted for a certain number of offences in Part I of the Schedule. Under certain circumstances, e.g. if a person is convicted more than once, the court is obliged to sentence that person to imprisonment for corrective training under that section for two to four years. But the Minister said—

I want to point out that this section specifically excludes juveniles under 18 years. Those to whom this section usually applies, are usually older people, old lags who require corrective training. What we pointed out was that we understood that for the non-Whites there were no facilities to put a compulsory court order into operation. That is how we understand the position especially with reference to the non-Whites. There is not the staff to do it. But the object of the section is clear. Unless the hon. the Minister can satisfactorily explain this, it appears that he is frustrating the very object of this Act of Parliament.

Which court order are you referring to?

Court orders under section 334ter of the Code. I wish the hon. the Minister would listen. When this section was introduced, a predecessor said the following about it (Hansard, 18th February, 1959, column 1073). He said, never mind about the courts. Their function is to punish and that the department can train and rehabilitate such people and turn them into useful citizens once again. Further on in the column he said—

Our understanding is that he is not doing anything with the majority of them. They are being treated in the same way as anyone else who is sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment. [Time expired.]

It is a long time since I have seen the hon. member for Durban North in so aggressive a mood. Initially he intimated that not enough time had been allocated for the discussion of all the matters under this Vote. But I want to remind him of the agreement between the Whips according to which the debate on another Vote would be half an hour longer, that half-hour being subtracted from this Vote. It is perhaps something he did not know, and I do not blame him either. He made an attack here on the Minister, an attack that was very unreasonable, in my opinion.

The Minister should have spoken earlier.

The hon. member knows that the Minister’s time is not included. Sir, after the nice way in which the Minister replied to hon. members on that side, I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for the way he acted this afternoon.

Sir, I only have a few minutes; I cannot argue any longer with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban North. I should just like to say a few words about Prisons. Firstly I want to say that the way in which prisons are built today, the housing provided for warders and the manner in which prisoners are treated, redounds to the great honour of South Africa. It was stated in this House that the treatment of prisoners was not very good; in actual fact, that they are treated very badly. Sir, there is not a single word of truth in that. The prisoners are well fed; they receive warm bedding in the winter months so that they do not get cold and they receive good medical care. The number of prisoners who die in prison is much smaller than the number of law breakers who die out of prison.

Sir, there is nevertheless a disturbing phenomenon as far as I am concerned, and that is the fact that crime is increasing. One sometimes does not know whether it is increasing because the people are being prompted by members in this House and perhaps encouraged. There must surely be a reason why crime is increasing to such an extent. In this connection I should like to mention a few figures here from the report of the Department of Prisons: In 1961 there were 55 000 sentenced and unsentenced prisoners, in 1966, 74 000 and in 1970, 90000, an increase, therefore, of more than 80 per cent. It is disturbing to find that such an increase in crime has taken place in spite of the fact that so much is being done to combat crime. The point I want to make here this afternoon is this, and I am speaking here on behalf of a large number of farmers who are very concerned about stock theft in the country. Stock theft has increased, I am almost tempted to say, by a few hundred per cent. Sheep disappear by the thousands and they simply cannot be traced. We recently had a case where the police did night duty for about a month and tried to waylay the sheep thieves, hut they did not succeed in catching them. However, one night they succeeded in catching one of the thieves; he had the carcass, the skin and the innards in a bag. He was then put into gaol and when the case came up it appeared that he had had three previous convictions. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment. He was an unemployed Bantu, but he could afford the services of an attorney. The attorney told him beforehand: “First send me R100 and then I will defend you’’. This unemployed Bantu then sent along the R100. The question that arises is where he gets the R100. My opinion is—and I do not believe that I am wrong—that this is organized theft, that the person who was caught was one of the ringleaders, and that he had made a lot of money out of the sheep he had slaughtered from time to time, particularly near the towns that have big fields that are hired out to farmers. Sir, I can tell you that in Colesberg, the chief town in my constituency, at least a few hundred sheep disappear annually. My request to the hon. the Minister is this: I do not know whether this is the right thing for the Minister to do, but I want to ask him if he cannot ensure that the penalty for stock theft be so heavy a penalty that it will serve as a deterrent instead of an encouragement, I think that a six month gaol sentence for stock theft, for the slaughtering of a sheep, in the case of someone who has already notched up three previous convictions, is far too light a sentence. The punishment must serve as a deterrent to him and not as an encouragement, because he gets two of the six months off, I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for heavier penalties to be imposed for stock theft.

I move—

That the Chairman report progress in order to enable the Minister of Defence to make a statement.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

STATEMENT ON AIRCRAFTACCIDENT

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I have to announce that during a practice flight this afternoon three Mercurius aircraft of the South African Air Force crashed against Table Mountain in bad weather and were destroyed. All the crew, as well as a few other officers who were on board as passengers, lost their lives. The names of the pilots and officers who lost their lives will be announced later, as soon as the next of kin have been informed.

The aircraft concerned were taking part in a formation practice flight for participation in the Republic Festival celebrations on 31st May 1971.

On behalf of the Government and the South African Defence Force I wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the next of kin. We have lost some of our best crew and officers.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members of this side of the House I wish to say that we would be grateful if our sympathy could be conveyed to the relatives of the deceased. We also express our great sympathy with the members of the Force in their bereavement.

APPROPRIATION BILL

(Committee Stage resumed)

Revenue Votes Nos. 26.—“Justice”, R21 727 000, and 27—“Prisons”, R36 590 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 12 — “Justice”, R717 000, and 13.—“Prisons", R550 000 (contd.):

Sir, I am surprised at the hon. member for Durban North. Right at the beginning of the debate the hon. member spoke for half an hour and said a few things about section 6 of the Terrorism Act and why that section was being used and not section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act of the previous year. I gave him an adequate reply to that and he knows it. What is more, I have a further point which I want to mention to him: Why are the words “or is withholding from the South African Police any information relating to terrorists or to offences under this Act” contained in the Act? I told him it applied in respect of persons in the Republic as provided here in the Act, and here the following is added: “and persons withholding information from the Police”. This clearly indicates that it is Intended not only for within our borders.

I have pointed out the difficulties experienced by our people in always getting such a person before a Judge within 14 days. But what I read out here, I said that we wanted enough information to submit to the Judge. We cannot simply tell the Judge that the Commissioner of Police wants it. I replied to the hon. member in full. I replied to all hon. members, and to come here and kick up a tremendous fuss now as if I had abused my position as Minister of Justice by waiting until all the hon. members but three had finished speaking before I spoke, as if this were a mistake, is completely wrong. And what is more, he may continue. There is still time left. If he wants to reply further, he may do so.

The hon. member said nothing was being done in respect of Black people in gaol who had been sentenced to undergo corrective training. But what is happening at the Festival? The hon. member has not even been to the Festival. He must see what type of Black people are there and ask them what their offences were, for how many years they have to remain there and whether they are there for corrective training or for a heavier punishment. Surely this is not merely a special thing. If someone is sentenced to corrective training, he is taught something. He may be trained for gardening, agriculture, farm work, as a cook or as a waiter. The hon. member should just go to the Festival, and then he will see what the prisoners are doing there.

The hon. member for Colesberg spoke mainly about the increase in crime and especially the increase in stock theft. It is true that crime has increased, but this is a world phenomenon. But now we must remember how efficient we are. Every session we pass numerous laws here in which penalties are prescribed. The provincial councils pass laws in which penalties are prescribed. The municipalities have bylaws in which penalties are prescribed. The judiciary is very efficient and eventually the Department of Prisons is saddled with these people. What must they do? As Department of Prisons they can only try to uplift these people, and this is as far as they can go. When they have come to the conclusion that they have made an impression on the person, that he has changed his attitude and has accepted a new mode of life, and after a certain period of time has elapsed, they may recommend to the State President that the person be released on parole.

I read what Blackie Swart had said.

Yes, of course, experience comes with the years. To come back to the hon. member for Colesberg, in my personal capacity as Minister or through my department, I cannot prescribe to a presiding magistrate what punishment to impose in cases of stock theft. One cannot do this. If we want this to be the position, we must have legislation which prescribes minimum penalties. Of course, we cannot plead for such legislation in this House at the moment. But to console the hon. member I want to say that since 1st January, 1969, at the latest, not one single person who has landed in gaol as a result of stock theft, has been freed on parole or has received a reduction in his punishment. This simply does not happen and, what is more we have requested our magistrates please to say in the open court when they are sentencing a man for stock theft: “You must remember this is your punishment; it is the policy that you cannot receive parole or a reduction in punishment.”

In this way this fact will be spread among the people. In this regard, therefore, we have really done our best. If we want to go further than this, we have to prescribe minimum penalties, and if we were to do this, it would not be acceptable either.

The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about the question of the wine farmers. The wine farmers, as represented by the K.W.V., also came to see me just more than a week ago. They had an interview with me and we discussed the problems. In respect of certain things I may perhaps be able to help, but there are other things in which I cannot help. I do not want to elaborate now on what we discussed there. The matters can rather be taken further later. But I just want to say this now. The first question the hon. member mentioned was that the White man’s liquor, especially wine, was not proving popular among the Black people. This is quite possible. I cannot say to what extent they drink natural wine and to what extent they do not. But as far as the department is concerned, I may inform the hon. member that we have established no fewer than 471 distribution points in Bantu areas, which they never had before. We have given them 238 on-consumption points and 233 off-sales points. These are for these people.

The hon. member referred to the position of the Coloured people. We have established 91 distribution points for them, 46 for on-consumption and 45 for off-sales. These have been given to individual groups of Coloured persons and to the Coloured Persons* Development Corporation. I do not want to say that we cannot do this on a larger scale. If applications are made for it, we can do so. These matters are not easily co-ordinated. You know, Sir, a year or two ago I announced that we had definitely decided it would be Government policy that drinking—I am not referring to off-sales now, but to ordinary on-consumption—by the various race groups in one another’s areas should be stopped. The White people do not drink in the Coloured areas, nor in Black areas, so there is no reason why the Coloured person should drink in the White man’s areas. But I added that we would have to be careful how we applied this, I then instructed the National Liquor Board, a body which is very heavily burdened with work, to investigate the matter. Their instructions were, in the first place, to determine how many existing distribution points there were, on-consumption distribution points. If I remember the figure correctly, there are already between 400 and 500 in the Cape Province. The board then had to ask the local authorities how many distribution points they thought should be added. After that we must determine the modus operandi of how we are going to remove them from the White area, taking into account the existing rights. The board has progressed far with this work. They have completed the first two tasks. In regard to the third task they have received many memoranda. On 1st June or 1st July, they will proceed to consider what should be done. If this is done, I think we shall have complied to a large extent with what the hon. member for Malmesbury pleaded for.

But the hon. member must realize that if this is done, one will not yet have boosted the consumption of natural wine, because I just want to indicate to the hon. member what the position is in regard to natural wine. I think the sale of natural wine was something like 16 million gallons in 1964, and at present it is 35 million gallons. It has increased tremendously. The graph rises almost vertically, while in the case of stronger liquor, such as brandy, the graph runs horizontally. The Malan Commission recommended at the time that light kinds of liquor—it specified wine and beer—be sold in grocery shops. Eventually we decided that only wine should be sold in such places. In addition I just want to point out to the hon. member what is happening in his own town, Malmesbury. In Malmesbury 562 985 gallons of liquor are consumed annually. [Interjections.] Of that quantity, 92 per cent is light wine. In the whole of the Western Cape, the figure in respect of light wine is between 83 and 98 per cent. I think the 98 per cent applies to Stellenbosch. Just for the sake of interest, I shall quickly consult the figures to see whether this is in fact the case—no, Stellenbosch does not drink so much.

What is the percentage in respect of Stellenbosch?

It is 77 per cent. At one place, however, the percentage is 98. The point I should like to make is that here in the Cape Province, where the Coloured people live, the consumption of natural wine is very high, ft is true that we can move the distribution points from the White area to the Coloured area, but I do not think this would necessarily promote the consumption of natural wine. Sir, you must just see how many deputations from the Coloured churches come to see me when there is talk of a removal to the Coloured areas. The churches immediately oppose this. These are matters one should bear in mind in considering these matters.

The hon. member also spoke about the difficulties which may arise as a result of England’s entry to the E.E.C. This is probably true. I accept it. I will also sympathize if losses are suffered as a result of that, but it is something which simply cannot be helped. If we are able to encourage the consumption of natural wine in the northern provinces, we shall do so, but our great difficulty is that natural wines which are transported to the interior in bottles, are hopelessly too expensive. These are the real facts. If we cannot supply wine at cheaper rates there, and if we cannot make it more popular there, we shall simply not succeed in selling more natural wine there. The people living in the north are mainly beer drinkers.

I just want to indicate what the position is in Pretoria. In Pretoria malt consumption is slightly more than 60 per cent. This is the pattern one finds in practically all the areas in the north. They are beer drinkers, while the people in the Cape are drinkers of natural wine. We are trying to promote wines in the north, and when the position becomes too bad at a certain place, we grant a grocer’s wine licence. However, the position is that this provokes strong opposition. We experience difficulties with the churches and with communities as well. The women’s societies and all societies operating in this sphere, flood one with representations in respect of grocer’s liquor licences.

Rather think of the silent majority.

Yes, they are also a silent majority, but they are rather talkative where this matter is concerned. I am glad the hon. member for Malmesbury raised this matter. It is a tricky problem. However, when the matter is examined very closely, I really do not think it is my own or my department’s duty to find a market for liquor. I may be wrong, but I do not think this is our duty. What we can do in terms of the Act is already being done. What we can perhaps still do is to expand slightly more in respect of grocer’s wine licences, especially in the north. Today the grocer’s wine licence hangs like a sword over the head of ordinary bottle stores and off-sales. If they do not reach a certain percentage or if that percentage drops too low, they are warned that the consumption of natural wine must be promoted, otherwise grocery shops will be allowed to do so. I want to say I believe that the time has arrived for the good qualities of wine to be brought to the attention of the northern provinces, if they are not already aware of them. The K.W.V. is doing very good propaganda work in this regard. But the bottle stores and off- sales must see to it that the percentage of natural wine consumed increases. It is too low. I want to admit this to the hon. member for Malmesbury and to the natural wine industry.

At this stage I think I should add that in this regard I am not satisfied with matters in the northern provinces. In some parts the situation is good, but there are parts where it is very bad. This must be accepted as a warning from me to bottle- store owners and to off-sales owners in the northern provinces that if they do not pull up their socks and popularize natural wine to a greater extent, I shall be obliged to go further with the matter of grocer’s wine licences.

What about the hotels which charge very high prices for wine at meals?

What the hon. member has mentioned there now, is also a problem. I have already considered whether I should not lay down as one of the conditions for a hotel licence that hotels should not make more than 100 per cent profit on natural wine, because they are selling natural wine at tremendous profits.

At restaurants as well.

Yes, restaurants are doing the same thing. However, if I were to do that, I would be performing the function of a price controller. That is not desirable. There is nothing in the Act which prohibits me from laying down such a condition, but then I would be using the Act for a purpose for which it was not introduced. Then the hon. member for Durban Point would criticize me about it again.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28.—“Mines”, R39 938 000, Loan Vote Q.—“Mines", R15 950 000. and S.W.A. Vote No. 14 — “Mines”, R410 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? At the start I want to deal with some aspects of the health of the mineworker. As far as the mineworker’s health is concerned, there are two aspects which I think the House should take into consideration. These two aspects are, firstly, the question of pneumoconiosis and, secondly, the hazards which the mineworker faces in his normal work, in which there is a very high percentage of accidents.

Let me first deal with one or two aspects of pneumoconiosis. In the latest report that we have from the Pneumoconiosis Commissioner, I find that there are 475 persons who have been certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis. This number includes 114 persons who were certified at the time of death, namely after post mortem examinations. This figure which is about one-quarter of the total number of certifications made is most important. A short while ago I attended a conference on pneumoconiosis and listened to many papers read on this subject. I listened with care to medical officers, medical personnel and specialists in chest diseases expressing their views at this conference and I realized how difficult it was in many cases to come to a decision after the examination of a miner by the methods which we use at the moment and to say with certainty whether or not the miner is suffering from pneumoconiosis. I understand that in every single one of the 114 cases the mineworkers did complain for a lengthy period before death of a cough. Often when these mineworkers went for examinations to medical officers they told them that they had been coughing. In many cases they described the type of sputum they were coughing up; yet when they were examined with the stethoscope and under X-ray no evidence of pneumoconiosis was found. But when these people died, there it was. The question now arises how we can compensate the mineworker for a disease which he is suffering from which cannot be proven to be present either by the stethoscope or by X-ray or by sputum examinations. In the case of a type of disease as this, a type of chronic bronchitis, it is better for the person to get tuberculosis, because then it will be shown that he has tuberculosis. He will then be taken out of his work, be compensated for the disease and treated. It seems strange to me that a man is not compensated for a disease while he is working and, on top of that, he is encouraged to keep on working during the period that he is suffering from the disease. It is a problem that we have to face and one wonders whether the hon. the Minister has some solution to this difficult problem. I would suggest that those people who are suffering from chronic bronchitis over a period of not more than five years should receive compensation and the benefit of the doubt at the examination. I do not know how many people will be involved in this, but if it is going to cost a lot of money to compensate these people I think it will be well worthwhile. I think the time has come for us, after listening to what we have heard from the experts, to pay compensation to these people.

This suggestion will of course have to apply to the non-White workers as well. I notice with amazement that of the Bantu working on the mines 4 502 were certified for the first time in 1970. What perturbed me even more was to read that 2 144 of these people were suffering from tuberculosis. This is a very high percentage. It would take a very large hospital to look after these people, who are suffering from tuberculosis. What is being done about it? Are these people receiving immediate treatment? If they are receiving immediate treatment, is that treatment continuous? I would like the Minister to tell the House how many people who are suffering from tuberculosis which follows upon pneumoconiosis, are allowed to go back to their homelands? If they are allowed to do so before they are free of infection, the spread to others in the homeland will be untold. I think it is a very important step which the hon. the Minister must take. He must see to it that every single Bantu whom the screening has shown has tuberculosis, will be prohibited from going back to his homeland. In the main these labourers are all migrant labourers and they should not be allowed to go back to their homelands if there is any danger that that disease might spread amongst the people of the homeland. At this stage I shall not go further into the matter of spreading the disease in the homeland. We know about the cases of malnutrition which are occurring in the homelands. Without going into the details of the matter, we know how serious such a position will be for the whole of South Africa.

The other matter that perturbs me is the span of life that an ordinary mineworker faces. The latest statistics available to us show that a White miner will probably live to 59,6 years of age if he suffers from pneumoconiosis. If he suffers from pneumoconiosis which impairs his cardio-respiratory function by 50 per cent or more, a miner cannot expect to live for more than 52,9 years. It means that the average number of years that any miner can enjoy a pension, whether it be for pneumoconiosis or not, is a period which is far shorter than the ordinary man of 59 to 65 years when a person expects to retire. I want to make this a little clearer. A man who is suffering from pneumoconiosis which impairs his cardio-respiratory function by 50 per cent or more cannot be expected to live longer than 52 years his normal retirement age would be 65. Therefore one can say that such a person’s life span has been shortened by at least 13 years.

I should like to ask the hon. member a question. I should like to ask the hon. member what percentage of mineworkers die of pneumoconiosis as compared to those who die of other diseases?

I am sorry, but I do not have these figures available. It is an interesting question and I think it is worthwhile investigating. I think it is one of the matters which we should go into.

It is a low figure.

Well, if the figure is very low, I am very pleased to hear that. The point is that this is the problem the mineworker is facing. We must minimize it because it is terribly important. I will leave that matter for a moment.

In regard to the accident rate we find that last year over 30 000 accidents have taken place in the mines, in which a mineworker was disabled for 14 or more days. All other accidents have not been included in this figure. Of these accidents…

Are you referring to the European mineworkers only?

No. When I talk about the accident rate I include the Bantu as well. The hon. member will know that the accident rate among the Bantu is far higher than among the Whites, because of the population of the mines, and the percentage number of Bantu workers. However, the perturbing fact is that of these, 872 were killed. It means that there is a death rate, due to accidents in the mines, of over two per day. That is what the mine- worker in our country has to face. This is the hazardous job that he undertakes for the Republic. Firstly, there is the possibility that he might die early because of pneumoconiosis. Secondly, there is the hazard of death through accident. It is no wonder then that the mineworker of today, where there are other opportunities in the field to earn a living, is very slow in coming forward to join the industry, and one cannot blame them. The manpower shortage is growing, and on the mines today we have vacancies for 1 800 White workers. There is a falling off of applicants for apprenticeship. Of 899, I find that 537 have qualified. There were an additional 928 who came into the ranks and 399 young people left the mines before their course of apprenticeship was completed. These are labour problems that are facing all the mines today, If the mines are going to have to proceed and produce only what they are producing now, then during the next 15 years, we will find that we will require in the White areas alone 600 000 miners, of whom 71 000 will have to be White. We are already 1 800 short now. So what is the shortage going to be in 15 years’ time? Then we have another complication as far as the labour is concerned.

What do you suggest?

The Government has, according to their ideology, decided that in the homelands there shall be separation in the development of the mines. There is going to be separation again. But in the homelands, for the special type of mines that we are working there, we will require 150 000 mineworkers in the next 15 years, of which 12 000 will have to be White. Where are we going to get the 12 000 from? They will have to come from the White areas because they are certainly not in the homelands. So we are going to find that in the homelands there is going to be just as much labour integration as there is in the cities today, along the Reef and in the Free State. There is not going to be any difference.

Or is there?

That is the point; but is there? Now, the homelands covered a very large percentage of what is called the igneous complex. This complex covers base metals and some of the precious metals as well, such as platinum, nickel, chrome, asbestos, manganese, magnetite, and iron ore. If the Bantu areas are going to be exploited as they should be exploited, if we want to make these Bantu areas viable, as every single person wants to do, the only way in which we can do it is by encouraging immediate mining there. If you are going to encourage immediate mining there, then you must have the experts to do the mining, and you have to do it soon, in order to make these homelands viable. Sir, a few weeks ago the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Minister of Labour both expressed the wish that the Bantu worker in the homelands should be able to reach the highest rung, and we all agreed with that.

And the highest political responsibility too.

Then I want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Labour said; I am pleased he is in the House. I do not know whether he had had second thoughts; he did not say so, but after a question from the hon. member for Rustenburg, he said, “We shall introduce the industrial conciliation legislation into the homelands.” Sir, to us in this House that means that job reservation is going to be applied there. When I asked the hon. the Minister whether he is going to allow the White miner to teach the Bantu how to reach the top he vacillated and then he said, “Do you think that we are going to run the risk of the White miner losing his job?” I am going to ask the hon. the Minister of Labour where he is going to get the White miners to do these jobs in the homelands and how he is going to accommodate these 12 000 in the homelands? Are they going to carry passes there, as he says the Bantu must carry in the White areas? Are they going to carry passports of some sort? The hon. the Minister is looking for trouble and the hon. the Minister of Mines is going to have a headache when he is called upon to develop the homelands. The policy of the Government is to do this on an agency basis, but when people develop the mines on an agency basis, they are going to do it their way; they are not going to be dictated to by the hon. the Minister of Labour. They will want to develop these mines in the way in which they think they ought to be developed.

What is your problem?

My problem is that you will not have enough workers who can do these jobs in the homelands unless you allow the Black man to advance to the highest possible level, without restrictions, in the homelands. You have to stop this business of putting brakes on people’s advancement. The White people will not go to the homelands and you will require 12 000 to go there.

How do you know that 1hey will not go there?

I think your figures are wrong.

If my figures are wrong, I would advise the hon. member to write to the Department of Mines and tell them that the mining statistics of 1970 are incorrect. Sir, I want to illustrate how quickly these mines can be developed. In the North-West Cape there are 4 000 million tons of iron ore which are not being mined. That potential earner of foreign exchange for South Africa is practically unexploited.

They have not got a port through which it can be exported.

In Swaziland they have 30 million tons of ore that they can exploit.

Where is Swaziland?

Sir, this is the difference between what is happening in Swaziland and what is happening here: In Swaziland they export three million tons of iron ore a year, and in the Republic, with all our vast resources, we export two million tons. We are only a million tons behind Swaziland in the export of ore.

But they refuse to build a port

What is the production of steel in Swaziland?

Tell us in your speech.

The hon. member can answer me.

It is quite irrelevant.

But, Sir, let us leave the question of iron ore. There is a world shortage of coke. We can get a contract for the export of R260 million worth of coke which we could sell to Japan over 15 years. We have got the type of coal to produce that. But what happens? We have complications with our Railways and we have no harbours through which we can export this coke, so that contract will probably go by the board. As far as seam coal is concerned we could export 10 million tons a year, earning us R60 million in foreign exchange, but there are no rail facilities. Of course, there is no coal shortage in the country. The trouble is that we have not got the trucks to transport that coal. There is too much coal being left in the ground. That is what our big problem is at the moment. I do not want to say anything about iron ore, but for months and years now we have been vacillating in trying to decide where we should have a port for the export of iron ore, whether it should be at Saldanha Bay, whether it should be at Port Elizabeth, whether a railway line should be built this way or that way. In the meantime the Japanese are waiting for us to make up our minds, but how long will they wait?

They are not waiting any more.

Sir, I would say that the sooner this Government gets out and hands this treasure back to South Africa so that we can properly utilize the riches that we have in the ground, the better for South Africa.

Are you advocating the export of coking coal?

Of course.

And yet there is a world shortage.

I want to ask the Minister whether he has decided yet whether or not he is going to advocate the use of a particular port for the export of iron ore.

That is not my function.

Has the hon. the Minister no say in the matter at all? Is he concerned with the matter?

Of course I am.

Has the hon. the Minister given an opinion?

Yes.

Will the hon. the Minister tell the Committee what his opinion is?

Sir, there are other speakers on this side of the House, and I want to give one or two of our other speakers an opportunity of telling the Minister what we think of him, of the Cabinet and the rest of the Nationalist Party.

We want to agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville’s few objective remarks about the interests of the mineworker, but when he tries to make political capital out of the manpower shortage, we essentially want to disagree with him. I should specifically like to ask the hon. member whether they advocate the abolition of the colour bar in the mining industry.

I never said that. Sir, does the hon. member want me to answer him? I say that we do not stand for that.

The hon. member advocated the greater employment of non-Whites in the mining industry with only one purpose in mind, and that is to export more and more of our mineral wealth out of the country. There are other members on this side of the House who will reply to him about the illness aspect. or the pneumoconiosis aspect, but in connection with the second aspect, where he spoke of exporting, and was worried that there are certain minerals, inter alia, iron ore and coke, which have to be exported, I want to present the House with a few ideas.

We know that today our mining industry has become the most important industry in the country, It has become even more important than the agricultural industry, and together they are the two foundation stones on which the economy of this country is based. The following figures prove this to us. In 1970 agricultural production gave us a yield of R966 million. On the other hand, mineral production amounted to R1 563 million, R833 million being furnished by gold and R57½ million by diamonds. During the year 1962-’63 the mining industry began to overtake the agricultural industry and increased constantly by more or less R2½ million per annum. With gold and diamonds as the most important sources of foreign exchange, the mining industry is today one of the most important sources of foreign exchange as far as we are concerned; and as long as South Africa is furnishing 70 per cent of the gold production of the free world, we shall be able to share in discussions in the economic council chambers of the world.

That is why it is advisable that the mineral wealth of our country be applied to the greatest benefit of the entire population. The gold-bearing ore of our country is not unlimited, and the time is fast approaching when gold production in this country will decrease. In fact, if the gold price continues to be fixed in such an unrealistic and uneconomic way as it is today, the time will come when there will be a sharp decrease in our gold production. The low grade ore mines will be forced to close down by increasing production costs. These mines, and there are 20 of them in the Republic, received State assistance of R17½ million in 1970. The time will inevitably have to come when the State will no longer pay any more to keep those uneconomical mines in operation. As gold production decreases, increasingly more attention will have to be given to the base minerals to take the place of gold as the source of foreign exchange for the country. One already notices today that the large gold mining companies are beginning to diversify their interests to an increasing extent, and they are focusing their interests increasingly on base minerals.

As I see it there are also dangers inherent in this, dangers to which we shall have to give timely attention. I should like to put it this way. The mineral wealth, however extensive it may seem to be, is not inexhaustible. If it is mined without planning and control, as at present, and also apparently as suggested by the hon. member for Rosettenville, who suggested the uncontrolled exporting of iron ore and coke, the time will come when we shall experience a shortage of certain basic raw materials that are of strategic value and importance to us. We who are living today also have a responsibility and an obligation to our descendants to ensure that we do not, through a short-sighted policy in connection with our most important mineral exports, cause a shortage of necessary strategic materials in times to come. The major portion of our base mineral production is today exported in an unprocessed form, and then we again import it in a processed form. Although it is the country's intention that our mineral wealth should earn us foreign exchange, local industries ought to be encouraged, to an increasing extent, to export our raw materials in a processed form, I think it is reasonable to ask the hon. the Minister to consider further steps—something has already been done in this connection—to encourage this and to achieve results.

Coupled with that we shall also have to reflect upon the mineral wealth of our country, and I want to suggest that attention be given by the Government to the following aspects. In the first place attention must be given to our minerals that are of strategic importance, and in the second place to our minerals that are of non-strategic importance. A systematic survey must then be made in our country of our country’s known mineral wealth, and the reserves in respect of each mineral must be determined. On the basis of such a survey it must be determined which of our minerals can be exported and how much of such a mineral is available for export. Because we must now take proper cognizance of the needs of our country, not only for today, but also for the future. Then steps must be taken to protect minerals in the strategic classification and, if need be, to prohibit their export. Steps must also be taken to trace all the mineral deposits, by way of geological and other surveys, so that a proper stock list can be drawn up of the Republic’s mineral reserves. A commission has already been appointed to institute an exhaustive investigation into the Republic’s coal sources. A commission should also be appointed to Institute a similar investigation into the minerals of the Republic so that a proper long-term policy of mining, export, processing and preservation of our country's minerals can be formulated. This is the only way to ensure that our natural raw materials are applied to the best advantage of the country and that essential raw materials will be preserved for our descendants.

We listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville. We are also glad that he has expressed his concern about the certification of the Whites and non-White mine workers under the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1962. But it is regrettable that, except for the contribution he made, the hon. member subsequently had such a change of heart that he just wanted to make political capital out of that. I must tell the hon. member that I am a novice as far as certification is concerned, but he ought to know, being a doctor, Doctors are the ones that do it, and they are highly qualified people. I want to ask him why he did not ask us to revise the Pneumoconiosis Act. I now ask that the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1962 be revised, and I am making this appeal to the hon. the Minister after 10 years. I am lodging a plea in the interests of the mineworker, both White and non-White, and without political pretexts.

Then I also just want to help the hon. member get his facts straight. He said that the retirement age for mineworkers is 65 years. I want to tell the hon. member that there are two retirement ages. For those working underground it is 60 years and for those working above ground it is 63 years.

My time is limited, but I also want to dwell briefly on the question of certification. The hon. member mentioned a figure of 475 in respect of persons who are certified prior to death, as against 114 who were certified after death. The hon. member will also know how the certification after death takes place. The hon. member for Rosettenville cannot come along and tell me today that he does not know how the certification after death takes place. After death persons are certified on the basis of the slightest signs, microscopically determined. That is specifically why one gets a figure of 114 as against the 475 who were certified prior to death. It is also as a result of this that we have various stages. The one stage consists of between 20 and 50, and the other of more than 50. It is difficult for doctors to determine precisely when the percentage that must be applicable to a certain person is 15, 19 or 20, and when it is 35, 49 or 50. The hon. member probably realizes this much better than I do. As a result of that, it has become necessary to advocate the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act. I hope and trust that the Minister will be able to tell us today or tomorrow when this legislation is going to be revised. If he agrees to it, I want to ask the Minister, in addition, to consider referring this Act to a Select Committee. I hope that the hon. member for Rosettenville will serve on such a Select Committee, because then we will be able to thrash the matter out around a table, in the best interests of those who work underground, Whites as well as non-Whites.

Sir, I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour is here, because on behalf of a very large number of people, probably all the mineworkers in the Republic of South Africa, I want to thank the Minister of Mines for the fact that 31 st of May has been declared a holiday with full pay for the mineworkers. In particular I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister because he made it possible to declare this day a paid holiday for all White and non-White mineworkers, after the suggestion had probably been made by various Ministers in the Cabinet. I want to thank the Ministers concerned, as well as the Prime Minister. It is something we fought for. We believed that we would be granted that holiday. It is just a pity that the Opposition did not also fight for it.

The hon. member for Rosettenville was the first to suggest it. [Interjections.]

Sir, we are dealing with serious matters. The hon. member may know something about television, but he knows nothing about mining. He must wait until he gets his television. I have now advocated the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act, and I believe that we are all of the opinion that certain problems have cropped up which the people who drew up this legislation at the time, did not spot. I believe that it will help to eliminate many problems. Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister for a mediation committee that can investigate the possibility of a pension scheme for mine workers. We ask for this because a great need for it exists. When a person who is not certified, retires, his pension is inadequate. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister if negotiations in this connection have already taken place with trade unions, and if they have, what the trade unions’ attitude is in connection with this matter. Another matter I should like to touch upon is the transfer of mine inspectors. As in the Department of Justice, the Department of Police and other departments, officials are frequently transferred during their period of service. I believe that it would be a good thing if these mine inspectors could also be transferred from time to time from one mine to another. Thus, for example, they could also be transferred from a gold mine to a coal mine. In this way they would gain a great deal more experience. From the coal mines they could again be transferred to the iron ore mines and from there to the asbestos mines. I believe that this system would have a desirable effect.

Other hon. members will still speak about the development of mines in the homelands. The Government has already stated its policy in this respect. It has been clearly stated, and I want to repeat it here, that White mineworkers are already working in those mines. Their interests will be protected. I am convinced, and it also accords with our policy, that in the future mining industry in the homelands, Bantu will be able to rise to the highest rungs. That is no secret, and it is also our policy. Neither have we ever deviated from it. The rights of White workers, who are at present working in mines in the homelands, will be protected, however. I nevertheless believe that the hon. member for Rustenburg has more knowledge and also more problems in this connection than I have, and I believe that he is able to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville. The mines have a long history in this country’s economy. As the hon. member for Virginia said, the mines, be they gold mines, coal mines, iron ore mines or asbestos mines, have played a big role in this country’s history. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the suggestion by the hon. member who has just sat down, that the 1962 Act should be reviewed, is something which, I am sure, the hon. the Minister should always give his attention to. The question of a constant review of this particular law in respect of which every miner feels it is his inevitable destiny, is something which obviously the hon. the Minister should constantly keep in mind. It is nothing new to tell us that it should be reviewed. If the hon. the Minister knows his business, as I am presuming he does, then he would take the necessary steps. I can only say to him that, with regard to the health of the miner, with regard to his future, with regard to his pension, with regard to his care, sufficient can never be done. We all know the complex under which every miner works. He feels it is his inevitable destiny. He does not even know whether it is happening today or whether it will happen tomorrow, but he knows it is there. Therefore, it is a matter which should always be the concern of the hon. the Minister. He does not have to be urged to do so by a member on the Government side, nor praised for anything he has done. I want to say further that I should like the hon. the Minister, whilst we are talking about this matter, to try to give some attention to the lot of the miner who in years gone by, was not sufficiently protected to receive what he regards today as adequate compensation or an adequate pension in respect of his illness. There is not a great number left, but there are still a number who suffer under the belief that more could be done for them. I know that we have pleaded for this on many occasions and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us whether he will give some attention to this and whether he has perhaps not already given some thought to the matter. Finally I should like to say on this point that, in considering the situation of the miner, if one errs at all, one should err on the side of the miner.

Let me deal with another aspect. I am very pleased indeed that the hon. member for Virginia has drawn attention to the tremendous latent potential of South Africa in the field of base minerals. There is a growing impression that gold mining is a dying industry in this country and that possibly, within the next 15 years or so, we might begin to see its gradual phasing out of the mining life of our country. But it is a well-known fact that, if it is so, it will not spell the end of mining in South Africa. The very fact to which reference was made, namely the tremendous latent potential, will Introduce a new era of mining into this country, the extent of which we can hardly appreciate at this stage. The hon. the Minister is obviously aware that many thousands more miners will be required in this particular industry. The figures given by the hon. member for Rosettenville are correct. We will need at least an additional 20 000 White workers over the next 15 years. We will need nearly 180 000 Bantu to assist in this work in the White areas only. I am not even talking about the homelands. The figures available at the moment, are very interesting. We have 600 000 Bantu working on the mines in the country, the majority of whom are foreigners, coming from outside the borders of the Republic. We have approximately 70 000 White workers in the mining industry. That number has to be increased. The hon. the Minister should tell us what plans he is making to meet this eventuality. What discussions has he had with the Mineworkers' Union, the important trade union in this industry which is, indeed, very concerned about the future? What discussions has he had with them of a fruitful nature, not of a nature similar to those discussions of the past when they have had clashes, when they have had disagreements? I do not have in mind the type of interviews that members like the hon. member for Rustenburg and the hon. member for Stilfontein have had with the trade unions in assisting the hon. the Minister, There must be fruitful interviews.

We stuck to our principles.

I have stuck no neck out. It is quite fine where it is. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has had fruitful interviews which will enable him to say to this House: “I am making the following plans. These are the steps I will take. These are the training institutes I feel we should encourage in this country. These are the steps we should take in order to assist in the question of the lack of apprentices. This is the encouragement we should give to the people of South Africa to enter into this particular industry”. We know, for instance, that because of the shortage of White workers in this industry today, we are even using women and training them as surveyors on the mines.

How do you mean “even”?

In the sense that it is rather harsh and hard work for a fair maiden to do. However, it is a fact that women have now been introduced in the surveying field and that they have proved to be very useful indeed. They are keen to learn; they want to get on and they are achieving progress in this work. This is something which we never dreamt would occur. We never thought that we would introduce women into the technical side of mining. It is so, but one does not want to call on one’s reserve resources, in this case the feminine side of our community, to assist us in this rather arduous work.

Then there are some other aspects I would like to mention. I want to mention one matter which the hon. the Minister could discuss with the hon. the Minister of Labour. That is in connection with apprentices who have to do trade tests under the Cott scheme. In terms of that scheme they can be put through a test. At the moment they go up for a test after they have completed their five years’ apprenticeship but in fact they do not really need this test, because after five years they qualify as journeymen. They are given the opportunity to go for a test after three years. If they are successful, they can enter the artisan field immediately. Because of the bottleneck that is being created by the testing of the number of apprentices who have done their five years’ training—many of whom are not really keen to do it because they do not think they require it— they are holding back the keener youngsters who can go forward for that test after three years of training. At the moment the delay for testing is up to six months. These are absolute facts that I have on record.

That has nothing to do with mines.

Well, it has very much to do with mines because a considerable number of artisans will be needed in the mines. I am drawing the attention of the hon. the Minister to this matter so that he can, in consultation, as part of his general outlook for the future and the general training of people for the mining industry, take this into account. He can take this into account because you cannot compartmentalize the activities of the Cabinet into water-tight departments. If a Minister of Mines is concerned with labour for the future, there is the Minister of Labour with whom he has to consult, or when we deal with the transportation of ore and base metals an hon. member on this side may perhaps say that the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Transport. There must be consultation. When it comes to the Cott scheme, we find that a delay of six months is driving away youngsters and it is costing them in the loss of better salaries which they can earn, as well as the bonuses, as much as R1 000 each. So it is taking quite a number of youngsters out of the apprenticeship field. They just do not continue with their apprenticeship because they are being held up by this bottleneck. Some of them are not that keen to finish their five-year apprenticeship. We have a responsibility not to be concerned whether a person is willing or not, but our responsibility is to provide encouragement as well as to provide a method of training. My concern is what other purpose can the hon. the Minister have at the moment with regard to the future expansion than to take care that he has sufficient labour for the future? I am not telling him how he should arrange his labour and I am not entering into any conflict with him about the methods to be used. I merely want him to know that there is a problem and I am sure that he knows about it. I want to stress this problem and I want to know from him what he is doing about it.

Then I want to say …

Are you talking about White labour?

I am talking about labour in general. I have given the hon. the Minister the figures already. There will be a shortage of approximately 20 000 Whites over the next 15 years and of about 185 000 Blacks. There is an important trade union, but what does the hon. the Minister do about it? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, and the hon. member for Rosettenville, have now again spoken about the labour. By way of an interjection I intimated to the hon. member for Rosettenville that his figures are wrong. I must say that it appears to me as if the hon. member for Jeppes’ figures are just as incorrect. I want to confine myself to the Bantu worker. According to the 1969 figures there were 369 734 Bantu workers on our gold mines. Together with the Whites this amounts to 410 521. In 1970 there were 386 113 Bantu workers. This means that from 1969 to 1970 there was an increase in the number of Bantu workers. This is in contrast to what the hon. member for Rosettenville implied here.

But now I should like to quote from a report of the address of the president, Mr. R. S. Cooke, to the Chamber of Mines (translation)—

That is what the president of the Chamber of Mines said at the 80th annual meeting on 23rd June, 1970. Now, hon. members must remember that he said this in June. I now want to refer to a few annual reports of mining companies. On 31st December, 1970, six months later, Mr. Monro said (translation)—

Mr. Monro is the chairman of “The Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Limited”. Now I come to the other company, “Western Deep Levels”. Well, that is an interesting company, because it belongs to the Anglo- American group. [Interjection.] I think it is very good. If the hon. member has shares in it, he is well off. Mention is made further on of the increase in tonnage, and then the report continues—

And that is the report which mentions an “oversupply of African labour” …

From where?

“Anglo American Corporation Group”, The heading is “Production costs rise. Working profits total R46.5 million. Review by Mr. I. W. Shilling”. That is the annual report of the company.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment I was indicating what Messrs, Shilling, Monro and Cooke had to say about the employment of Bantu on the mines. This is altogether in conflict with what hon. members on that side of the House have to say about the matter. Those people, from whose annual reports I quoted, know what they are talking about. They are active in the mining industry. But now I come to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Rosettenville with respect to safety. Here I again want to refer to what Mr. Cooke said in his presidential address at the 80th annual meeting in June 1970 in respect of safety. I quote (translation)—

This matter of the employment on our mines also has its fluctuations, just as Mr. Cooke indicates in connection with accidents. It is, however, very enlightening to note that in this very report of the Department of Mines, about the mining statistics of 1970, there is confirmation of what Mr. Cooke says in his annual report. On page 23 the downward trend in connection with accidents in our mines over the years is indicated graphically. That is the position, notwithstanding the fact that today we mine with greater risks at very much deeper levels than was the case in the past. It goes without saying that when mining is done at deeper levels, the problems are different from those near the surface.

I should like to elaborate on what the hon. members for Virginia and Jeppes said in connection with our base metal industry. The tendency exists today, and this will also be the case in the future, for us to have to change over increasingly to the base metal industry. This will, at a later stage, have to replace our gold mining industry. But now there is, in my opinion, the wrong view that a commission must be appointed to investigate the matter, as would also have been necessary in the case of the coal industry. Between the thirties and the forties it was generally accepted that we had inexhaustible coal field reserves. Then, quite suddenly, there was another standpoint which stated that we did not have the coal reserves to provide for our needs. It was said that we were engaged in wasteful exploitation and that our best coal was being mined and exported. Recently a report appeared after an investigation which, as far as I know, was under the leadership of Mr. Schumann. That report focused attention on the fact that we did, in fact, previously have the reserves. Views about our reserves change from time to time, and that is altogether wrong, in my opinion, and ought not to be the case. It again indicates a lack that exists in the administration of our mining industry, i.e. in research. I want to allege that the Division Geological Survey, which is a subdivision of the Department of Mines, must do that work. Once that work is brought up to date, it will not be necessary to appoint commissions. The research work must move ahead, because this enables the Government or the Minister of Mines, which must deal with the matter, to plan ahead. Sir, you know, of course, that the shortcomings in this connection are to be ascribed to the shortage of staff. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer this evening to a matter which is not the whole responsibility of the Minister of Mines. It is, however, a matter in which I believe he has the duty to play a major role in the defence of the South African economy. I refer essentially to the question of the mining, the production and the export of mineral ores. This is a matter which has been raised on other Votes because the Minister of Transport, for instance, has a role to play in the carriage of these ores from the mines to the ports. The Minister of Economic Affairs and, for all I know, the Minister of Planning, also have an interest in the development of South Africa’s productivity and in the development of our natural resources.

Our economy in South Africa is in a very serious state. It is not serious in the sense that we have a weak economy, but it is serious in the sense that our economy has fallen out of gear. Our balance of payments, which constitutes the immediate sinews of our durability against external threats and internal disorder, as well as being our means of paying for the needs of our times, has fallen out of gear, because South Africa is importing a great deal more than it is able to export. During the last year we incurred a balance of payments deficit well exceeding R1000 million. This is a very large sum, and one which causes enormous concern to our industrialists, our economists and, I have no doubt, to our Minister of Finance, We have no immediate remedies at hand. The situation will continue unless we apply the one single remedy which is available to us over the short term, and that is the production of mineral ores. Our mines have been our salvation in the past. Our gold mines have been our redemption over many years. We now have to look to our base minerals which can in fact provide the solution to this problem within a relatively short space of time.

It has been argued in this House that the growth in our base mineral production exports has, over the last five years, been of the order of 13,3 per cent. This is, however, a misleading figure because the 13,3 per cent growth over the last five years has resulted mainly from the export and the rise in prices of such metals as platinum, copper, vanadium and antimony. These are metals which do not impose heavy burdens on our transport system. They are concentrated, heavy minerals. The fact is that while these metals have brought about this high growth rate for us in the past years, prices have dropped sharply in the market for these metals. We had, for example, earnings of R248 million in 1970, and it is expected that these particular minerals will earn only R263 million by 1975. This is a complete slowdown in the earning capacity of these minerals, due to the collapse of the market for these metals.

The other minerals which we can export, for which there is a demand and for which prices are reasonable, are such other metals and minerals as coal, iron ore, the ferroalloys and stainless steel. These can be our salvation, but unfortunately they depend upon our railways and harbours. The problem is to find a means of carrying these metals to the ports and exporting them from the ports. Exports of these metals have grown by only 3 per cent per annum over the past decade and drastic action is needed in order to ensure that they play the role which is now required of them if this vast deficit, this grave weakness in our economy, is to be remedied. It has been calculated that if transport services and port facilities can be provided, the metals which I have just mentioned could by 1980 earn an annual income of R1 334 million, provided that one condition is met. This condition—and I now quote from a recent speech by Mr. Schumann of General Mining—is that the port at Port Elizabeth, St. Croix, must be ready by 1974 and Saldanha Bay must be ready by 1977. This is a rather tall order but it is one which in the opinion of the mining companies which are responsible for these exports, can in fact be met.

But, Sir, what have we had? We have had over the past year a period of complete indecision and disarray on the part of the Cabinet, I have raised this matter, because it is so urgent and so important, several times in this House. I have raised it with the hon. the Minister of Transport. He stated earlier this year that in fact he had not made up his mind about Saldanha Bay, that St. Croix was a possibility, that investigations were taking place and that Saldanha Bay would gain preference, by wish of the Cabinet, provided certain conditions were met. These conditions were that contracts should be obtained for the sale of iron ore through Saldanha Bay and that the Japanese, who are our customers should make certain loans. Sir, these conditions have not been met. I have seen evidence and I have discussed this with the Japanese themselves—that these conditions will not be met during the whole of this year and probably not for some time after this year. The fact is that contracts have already been negotiated and are ready for signature for the export of ores through St. Croix. The Japanese are ready and willing to take these metals but because of the conflict of opinion between the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Economic Affairs, who has made statements in favour of priority for Saldanha Bay, and some members like the hon. member for Moorreesburg and others, there is complete confusion about this. The producers who are ready to earn money for South Africa to remedy our balance of payments simply do not know what is happening.

Sir, I believe the time has come for the hon. the Minister of Mines to take a hand in the matter. He, after all, is basically responsible for the mining industry which is the key figure in the whole of this confused state of affairs. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that as soon as possible and with the least delay, he appoint a mineral ores export council or committee which would co-ordinate the departments concerned in the export of these ores. I would suggest that, for example, the hon. the Minister of Finance might be vitally interested; I know that he certainly is. The Minister of Transport has a big role to play and the Minister of Economic Affairs must simply come to see reason about this thing. I believe that the Minister of Mines could make a great contribution if he were to sponsor this kind of co-ordination which would bring some sense into a complete state of disarray. Sir, the ores are available; the production is available; it is simply a matter of getting this thing off the ground and getting it going.

The hon. the Minister was a little surprised this evening when reference was made to the possibility of exporting coking coal. It is true that there is a shortage of coking coal in the world, but there are substitutes, and the major substitute in fact is available in South Africa in very large quantities. There is a substance known as No. 2 seam coal and yet another one known as No. 5 seam coal, both of which are entirely suitable for metallurgical purposes which is what coking coal is about. Sir, we have enormous seams. These could be developed and we could in fact develop a large export trade in these things provided we get up and go. It is no good sitting here playing a passive role, complaining about the difficulties which face us, the tight markets and the shortages which we face; we simply have to take action because our economic situation, particularly as far as our exports and our balance of payments position are concerned, is growing critical. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues should put their heads together because it is within their means to remedy this situation and we would like to see them doing it.

Sir, in my constituency there are many mineworkers. We have the workers employed in the coal mine at the large power station of Vierfontein and the workers employed in the gold mines at Odendaalsrus and Allanridge. When I ask tonight for the mineworkers as a group to be granted special benefits, the argument may be raised that one group of persons may not be favoured above another group; that exceptions may not be made. But I want to say that in this case an argument will not hold water, for the Government is in fact interested in the problems peculiar to specific groups of persons. The authorities are already giving special treatment to groups of persons under specific circumstances. Such treatment is called subsidies, as we all know, but I think that we may just as well call it circumstantial assistance; to my mind this is a more appropriate term.

These subsidies, or this circumstantial assistance, run into a substantial figure in the Estimates for this year. In respect of the mining industry this circumstantial assistance amounts to R17,6 million; in respect of the Wool Commission it is R10 million, and the subsidy to the consumers of maize and wheat products amounts to R57,l million this year, whereas the aggregate consumer subsidy in respect of agricultural products amounts to R87,5 million, to mention only a few examples. Sir, in quoting these examples I want to illustrate that the principle of circumstantial assistance to certain groups of persons in specific circumstances has already been accepted by the authorities. Tonight I want to plead for a similar concession for our country’s mine- workers as a group.

But before doing so, Sir, I want to explain the matter a little more fully. It is not my intention to elaborate on the important role of gold in the economic setup of our country, or the value which the Government places upon the ability of every goldmine to keep up production. I have already mentioned the figure in respect of the contribution made by the Government in this regard this year. Furthermore, it is not my intention to elaborate on the circumstances under which the mineworkers extract the substance from the earth; I think all of us are familiar with that. I want to outline to you, Sir, the position of the mineworker once he has left the mine, upon attaining the retiring age or earlier than that. I want to put to you, Sir, his concern and his fear. His concern and his fear arise from the very circumstances in which he is placed by the nature of the work he has to perform. His concern and his fear are: How long will my lungs—in other words, my health —last after I have left the mine? For even if a mineworker apparently enjoys reasonably good health upon leaving the mine, nobody can argue away the fact that the mine—in other words, the nature of his working conditions—did impair his health in a particular manner, to a lesser or greater extent, but in the end he will not escape the consequences of having worked in a mine. This damage done to his health as a result of his working conditions, often has a delayed after-effect, but it is there, unmistakably and inevitably.

Like any other person, the mineworker most certainly has to contend as well with the usual financial worries once he has retired. But in addition to these, he is also concerned about the effects which his working conditions had or will have on his health. As a group of persons with specific circumstantial consequences, which cannot be measured in terms of money—which in fact is frequently the case with other cases of circumstantial assistance by the authorities—there is, therefore, sufficient and sound reason for sympathetic consideration to be given to some form of circumstantial assistance to the mineworker so as to compensate him for subsequent loss of health caused by the circumstances imposed on him by his work.

I therefore want to propose that serious consideration be given to the possibility of granting some form of tax rebate to the mineworkers as a group. His working conditions and the circumstantial effects on his health are justification for sympathetic consideration to be given to such circumstantial assistance by the authorities in order to compensate him for subsequent loss of health. Now, I do not wish to enter tonight into the details of such concessions. I merely want to submit that the principle involved in the matter has merit, for the State is already granting special circumstantial assistance to other groups of persons because it is concerned, inter alia, about their subsequent financial position owing to preceding events, such as droughts in respect of the agricultural sector, such as the cost of living in respect of the consumer sector, such as high production costs in respect of the gold-mining industry, etc. To the same extent consideration may be given to the possibility of granting circumstantial assistance to the mineworkers as a group in order to compensate them for subsequent loss of health. If we can do this in respect of the financial position of one group, then we must also do so in respect of the health position of another group, for in importance these two aspects cannot be compared.

I am leaving the matter at that, for there is another matter I want to discuss in the short time at my disposal, i.e. I want to make the request that the Planning and Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister should institute an urgent and early investigation so as to indicate the future course to be followed in respect of the gold-fields area in the Free State once the role of gold has lost its power in this area. Now, I do not want to suggest that this will happen soon, but in planning of this nature, as is indeed the case in any other form of planning, we must anticipate the future. We may not wait until we are unavoidably faced with the problem. Founded or unfounded, rumours are circulating that at the present gold price the gold mines of Odendaalsrus and Allanridge will remain in production for only a few more years. If that is true, established communities will collapse if the mines stop producing. They will collapse because there are no substitute industries which can support these communities. But an investigation of this nature will have certain very important consequences. In the first place, it will indicate that the authorities have no intention, as I also believe, to stand by and see established communities collapsing in cases where the gold-mining industry has ceased to exist. In the second place, it will, to a certain extent, inspire investors and industrialists with confidence in the future of this area, and it will bring more life into this area; and, in the third place, it will place the local authorities of these two towns, i.e. Odendaalsrus and Allanridge, in a position to plan the future development and growth of their towns in an efficient manner. I am also making this appeal or request pursuant to an interview which a deputation of the City Council of Odendaalsrus and I had with the hon. Ministers of Mines, Economic Affairs and Planning on a previous occasion. I believe that such an investigation by the Planning and Advisory Council will be very valuable to the gold-fields area of the Orange Free State, that it will inspire new confidence in the future of the area and that it will also bring reassurance to the communities living there at the moment.

I feel rather sorry for the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, because he is a young member and he still has to learn that very, very little will be given to the mineworker by the large monopolistic capitalists in the Government with whom he was pleading. Little good indeed is contained for them in that.

But I want to come to another matter I have raised here before, and that is the question of sink-holes in the Western Transvaal. A good deal has been done to investigate those sink-holes, but they remain a source of concern to the people living in that area. According to information I have from the hon. the Minister, no fewer than 59 new sink-holes have appeared in that area since 1st January last year. I admit that the vast majority of these occurred in vacated areas. Some of these sink-holes were enormous. One of them had a diameter of 300 feet, a depth of 70 feet and occurred south of the provincial road, 111 No. 1. But included in this number of 59, there were at least four which had not been expected. Fortunately, and we are grateful for this, three of these subsidences occurred at uninhabited places, either on mining land or on farm land. But one, which occurred on 24th October, 1970, became a catastrophe when a tennis court at the Venterspost mine subsided and a person, a spectator, lost his life. That was an unexpected hole, one nobody had expected would occur there. This indicates to me that quite possibly not everything has been done to ascertain where the danger points are in regard to these sink-holes. This hole was 50 feet in diameter and 40 feet deep, nearly as deep as this chamber. It was an extremely dangerous one. I am referring to the region in the Bank area and in the Gatsrand area as well.

What particularly worries me is that incident at the English primary school in Westonaria. In that case as well there were assurances that the area was safe, and suddenly one fine day we found that part of the ground near the school had been fenced in after there had been repeated warnings and after one could have felt, as I have been informed, air being forced out of one of the nearby holes. Drills were brought to the area; tests were carried out and it was found that the area was safe. The assurance was given that nothing further would happen, and as far as I have heard, the school was re-opened. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is able to give a 100 per cent assurance this evening that there is no longer any danger at that Westonaria primary school. Something was said in regard to the fenced-in area and the other area at the school. Is there any further danger in the fenced-in area? The reason I am asking this is that in the past we have had assurances in regard to that area. I shall read out here what the hon. the Minister said on 21st February, 1969. At that time the Minister of Mines gave the following assurance. I have the English version here—

† A short time later the hon. the Minister, on 5th March this year, had to give another reply, which indicated the following:

*As far as I can make out, this refers to the so-called fenced-in area, but I want to have the assurance of the hon. the Minister that the area is absolutely safe, because in that area there are schoolchildren and there are schools and other buildings.

We must remember that a policy in respect of sink-holes is being followed here which will deliberately give rise to an increasing danger of sink-holes. It is a deliberate policy. It is a policy which has been followed in order to promote the mining industry, which is in the national interest, in the full realization that the de-watering of that area will give rise to sink-holes. This is according to the official statement issued. I do not mind that that decision was finally taken. However, it should have been taken in the light of the necessity of creating 100 per cent safety in those areas. We should remember what the Minister said in his statement of 11th December, 1969, i.e. that de-watering would lead to the subsidence of ground and the formation of sink-holes in certain parts of the bank compartment and, I accept, in other parts as well.

What is the problem? Surely there has been no loss of life?

The hon. member says there has been no loss of life. But how many lives have been lost because of the formation of sink-holes? Forty people have lost their lives, 500 houses have had to be vacated, and 200 have had to be demolished. Damage to the value of R16 million has been caused, [Interjections.] Was there no loss of life when the tennis courts subsided? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Etosha must stop interjecting.

So let the hon. member for Etosha give the assurance that there will be no further loss of life in those residential areas. We have heard here of major works which have been undertaken and of thousands of boreholes which have been sunk in order to determine whether all the sink-holes have been detected. I have made a small calculation here. The surface area of this Chamber in which we are sitting, goes into a square mile 2 500 times. This means that if one wanted to detect a hole the size of this Chamber by means of sinking boreholes, one would have to sink 2 500 boreholes in order to ensure that there was no sink-hole in that square mile. This illustrates the scope of the problem, and I wonder whether we always realize this. Hon. members may make this calculation for themselves. Therefore, boreholes alone are not adequate. There are, of course, other means as well, such as seismographic instruments, and these can reduce the number of boreholes per square mile. But I say that if further incidents, similar to that which occurred at Venterspost last year, were to occur it would serve as proof that enough had not been done and that a sufficient number of boreholes had not been sunk in order to determine the locality of the sink-holes.

That particular tennis court had not been indicated as being safe.

In that case, how could a tennis court, sports grounds, etc., still have been there? We should like to know what really happened there. Has the school area at Venterspost been indicated as being sale? Is it absolutely 100 per cent safe today? This is what we and the parents of that area want to know. This is a matter which affects human lives. In 1965 the Minister of Mines said here—

In regard to that area, stability has been reached.

On 11th November, 1966, he said—

But three months later the major catastrophe occurred in that area. Therefore, there is no point in telling stories about assurances; we want to know exactly what has been done; we want to know up to what point work has been done, and we want to have the assurance that in an area in which people are living with even a slight possibility of danger, as many boreholes will be sunk and as many instruments will be lowered as is necessary to ensure 100 per cent safety. The people who are living there are making this sacrifice for the sake of the mining industry, an industry which is of national importance. This we all admit. Therefore it is not right that their lives should be endangered by the fact that methods are being used which cannot guarantee 100 per cent safety.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to crawl around with the hon. member for Orange Grove in the holes to which he referred. However, at the beginning of his speech he made a remark that I do not think one can simply allow to pass, because by that remark he was guilty of a gross deception.

Order! To what gross deception is the hon. member referring?

I should like to explain. The hon. member for Orange Grove said here, with reference to what my colleague, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, said, that it would not help the hon. member for Odendaalsrus …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I asked the hon. member for Springs for an explanation and I shall give my decision afterwards. The hon. member for Orange Grove must resume his seat,

He said that it would not help the hon. member for Odendaalsrus to lodge a plea with this capitalistic Government, because nothing would be obtained from them for the mine- worker.

I think the hon. member must withdraw the words “gross deception”.

I withdraw them, but I want to say …

But…

Order!

The hon. member tried to create a wrong impression here. This debate specifically has one interesting characteristic, i.e. that while this side of the House consistently advocated benefits for the worker in the mines, that side of the House, perhaps with the exception of the hon. member for Rosettenville, lodged a plea for the employer, in other words for the capitalist.

This evening?

Yes, this evening.

You are talking nonsense.

I now want to prove that it is this side of the House that looks after the interests of the mine- worker.

You will not save Springs in that way!

Let me just tell the hon. member for Yeoville that thanks to the action of this Government, Springs has remained Nationalist. It will also remain Nationalist in the future. It has always been this side of the House that has looked after the interests of the mine- worker, and I want to prove it. I have in mind, for example, the widows’ pensions, which have been considerably improved in recent times and which will also be further improved in the future. I also want to point out that pneumoconiosis pensions have been increased three times since 1968. It was surely not the United Party Government that made this possible. I also want to point out that the circumstances of mineworkers’ dependants, i.e. their children, were improved by means of contributions voted by this Government. Travel allowances were granted to people who had to go to the bureau for an examination. In spite of this, the hon. member for Orange Grove arrogates to himself the right to say that nothing can be expected for the mineworker from this capitalistic Government, One can hardly be blamed for making the kind of statement I made.

This evening I very briefly want to refer to another matter which I think is of great importance to the majority of mineworkers. At the outset I want to say that pleas were made in this connection from time to time. This is a matter involving heart diseases. I want to advocate that heart diseases among mineworkers be accepted as industrial diseases for the purpose of compensation. As I have already said, pleas were lodged for this in the past, but were refused for very good reasons. This evening I again want to advocate that the hon. the Minister should reconsider this matter. I do not merely want to leave my plea hanging in the air; I should like to furnish proof in support of my plea for why this matter should again receive attention. If one now looks at the report of the Miners’ Bureau, one sees on page 5 that there are a relatively large number of prospective mineworkers who are turned away on the grounds of possible heart trouble. In other words, they are not selected for employment on the mines. In spite of the faot that this selection is so strict, one sees on page 9 of the report that in the respective year, the year which ended on 31st March, 1970, there were 925 cases of mineworkers with some or other form of heart disease. I now want to say that 925 perhaps does not sound like a very large number, but if one now bears in mind that this number is only exceeded by the 1 323 cases of chronic bronchitis and the 1 014 cases of emphysema, I do not think it unreasonable to conclude that as a result of the work down in the mines, and everything that entails, the chances of heart disease, in some form or other, are greater for mineworkers than for people in general. I think that under these circumstances there are consequently really good reasons why the hon. the Minister should give his attention to this matter, to see whether a change cannot be made.

In passing I also want to refer to another matter. According to this same report the percentage of persons accepted for work in the mines is increasing. If one notes that in 1962 79 per cent were accepted and that last year the figure stood at 89 per cent, an increase of 10 per cent, one wonders whether greater concessions are now being made to people who propose to go and work in the mines. If that is so, I want to say that I think it is a very unhealthy state of affairs. If it is so, the hon. the Minister should also give attention to the matter to ensure that people who are not physically capable of working in the mines for a relatively long period, are not allowed to do so. I make this appeal because our mineworkers are worried about this matter. We know that we can confidently leave it in the hands of the very sympathetic Minister of Mines.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that hon. members on that side of the House could not resist placing the discussion of this important Vote, where we are dealing, inter alia, with the problems of the mineworkers, in the political arena. At the outset I want to tell hon. members opposite that I am not afraid, on the one hand, of speaking politics when we are, inter alia, discussing matters in connection with mineworkers. On the other hand. I want to tell the hon. members that I understand their wanting to make political capital out of this, because if I look at the hon. members opposite, it is remarkable that not one of them represents constituencies in which there are mineworkers. I know the mineworkers of South Africa because I represent a constituency in which there are many mineworkers. Those mineworkers trust this side of the House. The mineworkers of South Africa have repeatedly furnished proof that their representatives in this House are Nationalists. The mineworkers of Smith Africa have proved, in election after election, that they rejected the hon. members on that side of the House one after the other.

I shall come to the hon. members opposite again at a later stage, but provisionally I want to leave them at that, because the Vote we are now discussing is, as far as I am concerned, a very important one. Mining, from the nature of the case, is one of the cornerstones on which the economy of South Africa is built. One asks oneself what the economic history of South Africa would have been, were it not for the important fact that in South Africa we are so wonderfully endowed with mineral wealth in the earth of our fatherland. It is interesting to briefly note that the mining of our mineral wealth yields the tremendous sum of more than R1 200 million per annum. It is also enlightening to note the development of our mineral wealth over the past 25 years in South Africa. Since 1946 the production of gold in South Africa has increased by 82,9 per cent. The production of copper by 93,5 per cent, coal by 63,5 per cent and diamonds by 112,5 per cent. I am just mentioning these figures to indicate to hon. members the tremendous progress that has been made in mining in South Africa over the past twenty-five years.

It is also interesting to mention a few figures here to indicate South Africa’s relative share in mining throughout the world. Then we must, however, bear in mind that South Africa only constitutes, 8 per cent of the world’s surface area. Only 0,5 per cent of the world’s population lives in South Africa. And it is truly enlightening to note that South Africa produces 55 per cent of the free world’s gold. South Africa also produces 48 per cent of the world’s platinum, 19 per cent of the world’s uranium, 18 per cent of the world’s diamonds, 7 per cent of the world’s chromium and 7 per cent of its manganese.

Because we realize that mining in South Africa is of fundamental importance, I should like, with all the seriousness at my command, to express the utmost praise and pay the highest tribute to those men who have, for many decades, helped to mine the mineral wealth for us in South Africa. This evening I cannot but express the utmost praise and pay the highest tribute to the mineworkers of South Africa for their contribution. And I cannot do otherwise than convey the sincere thanks and appreciation of the mineworkers to the hon. the Minister. The mineworkers of South Africa know that, when it comes to the problems of the mineworkers, the Minister of Mines always approaches their interests with the greatest circumspection. The mineworkers of South Africa know that this side of the House, the Government of South Africa, is the worker's friend. They can rightly trust this side of the House with their interests. The hon. member for Springs has already briefly referred to that, but I also want to point out what the National Party has done for the mineworkers over a period of a year or two. I can say that the pneumoconiosis benefits were increased by 20 per cent with effect from 1st April, 1970. The increase in pensions applies to those suffering from pneumoconiosis, with the exception of the mineworkers with a functional impediment of between 20 per cent and 50 per cent. The latter group’s pensions have been increased by 10 per cent. Let us look at what this National Government has done for the widows of the mineworkers. Certain widows have, apart from the pneumoconiosis pensions, also received a grant from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In some cases the grant amounted to R9 per month and in others to R15 per month. This means that they received a total of R59 and R65, as against the pension of R50 per month in terms of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. With effect from 1st April, 1971 the widows’ pension in terms of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act was increased from R50 per month to R60 per month. In this way this anomaly and discrimination was eliminated, except in the few cases where the grant of more than R60 per month was retained. Then it was also arranged that instead of two payments, i.e. by the Pneumoconiosis Commissioner and by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, there will now be only one payment per month to the widows by the former. I can tell hon. members and the hon. the Minister that the widows of former South African mineworkers appreciate what this side of the House has done for them.

As far as the services of district surgeons are concerned, I may just mention that an arrangement has been made with the Department of Health, as a result of which indigent pneumoconiosis pensioners can be treated free of charge by district surgeons and as a result of which they can obtain free medicine. The hon. member for Stilfontein also mentioned here this afternoon that he wanted to express his sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Mines, and also to the hon. the Minister of Labour, for the fact that we have obtained every Republic Day, instead of one Republic Day every five years, as a statutory holiday for our workers. I found it particularly interesting that hon. members opposite made interjections about that Thereby they, and particularly the hon. member for Rosettenville, tried to create the impression that hon. members opposite were the individuals who specifically advocated that this Government should declare Republic Day a statutory holiday. When hon. members say things like this one is struck dumb, because they were the people in the first place who, tooth and nail, opposed our fight for a Republic for South Africa.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Hillbrow is not present. Let us look at what he said in connection with this extremely important matter. Under the discussion of the Labour Vote the hon. member for VanderbijlPark advocated the introduction of Republic Day as a statutory holiday, and this is what the hon. member for Hillbrow had to say to that (Hansard, vol. 30, column 3300)—

Republic Day is a big occasion for South Africa, and I specially noted the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to it merely as a holiday. I now cannot but express to the hon. the Minister our sincere thanks and appreciation for what has also been obtained again for the mineworkers.

In the last few minutes at my disposal, I want to lodge a serious plea here with, firstly, the Chamber of Mines. A mineworker, like any other person, like ourselves assembled in this House, just like a teacher or any person connected with the Public Service, would like to receive a pension on which he can live when he retires one day. I should very strongly like to advocate to the Chamber of Mines that the pensions of our mineworkers in South Africa be reviewed. In conjunction with that, I very humbly want to ask the hon. the Minister of Mines whether he cannot also give serious thought to the appointment of a mediation committee which, in conjunction with the Chamber of Mines, can assist the mineworker to obtain better benefits, just as on occasion we very profitably appointed a mediation committee to increase the salaries of our mineworkers. It is not that I am implying that the mineworkers in themselves, with their trade unions, are not able to do this—it is just a gesture from this side of the House, from the Government, to also indicate once again that we take care of their problems at all times and would like to improve their position.

In conclusion I want to associate myself with the other hon. members who spoke about this, and very seriously advocate to the hon. the Minister that the Pneumoconiosis Act, which has been on the Statute Book since 1962 be reviewed. (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before coming to the hon. member for Welkom, I would like to react to some of the things said by the hon. member for Springs. He made the accusation here—a completely wrong accusation—that we on this side of the House, with the exception of one member, pleaded the case of the employer as against that of the employee. I believe this was a very shocking thing to say. I think it is well known that this side of the House has always done everything in our power to plead for the worker in South Africa, whether he be a mineworker or any other. I want to say to him that we make no apology for pleading the case of the employer, too, because we believe that the employer and the employee are complementary to each other. The one certainly cannot do without the other. I think to try and create the impression here that we only plead for one side, is a shocking case of trying to play very cheap and small politics.

The hon. member for Springs also mentioned the question of compensation for various diseases amongst mineworkers. I want to suggest to him to go through Hansard for the last five years, and he will find that the hon. member for Rosettenville has been pleading all along for special compensation for miners who suffer from heart ailments, gastric disorders and deafness, just to mention a few. I think we can say with assurance that we on this side of the House certainly do not yield to that side of the House when it comes to fighting for the workers of South Africa. The hon. member for Welkom followed the same trend. He tried to put up a case that the only champion of the mineworker’s cause was that side of the House. We know of course that that is completely wrong as Springs in the provincial elections showed by voting very solidly United Party. I want to leave the matter there because I want to raise a matter of an entirely different nature.

I placed a question on the Order Paper to the hon. the Minister of Mines and asked him whether in fact the commission of enquiry into the diamond industry had come forward with their findings. I was told by the hon. the Minister of Mines that they had not come forward with their findings and that he felt that this could be delayed for a very long time. It is rather disappointing because I have pleaded consistently in this House since 1966 for an expansion of the diamond cutting industry in South Africa. It is a sad state of affairs when we find that after a period of 43 years the diamond cutting industry sponsored by the Nationalist Government in 1928 has been almost completely static when other countries all over the world have expanded their industries enormously. There are possibly 30 000 diamond cutters in the world and of that number South Africa has less than 1 000.

You know the reason.

I know that we will hear all the old arguments. I know them all. We will hear that South African diamond cutters cut only diamonds of a certain size. That is quite true. But we also know that South Africa is a fantastic producer of the smaller type of diamond. It is not very complimentary to us when I say that other countries have been able to overcome this problem and develop large diamond cutting industries while South Africa always finds some excuse. I do not want to anticipate the findings of this commission. I certainly hope that when these findings are finally before us that there will be some constructive suggestions for increasing the size of the diamond cutting industry in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there is another matter which I should like to raise. I think the hon. the Minister of Mines will agree with me that when you look at the overall picture of the diamond industry in South Africa for the year 1970 it presents a very gloomy and sombre picture. This is so much so that when you analyse the sales figures of the central selling organization, an organization that markets 85 per cent of the world’s diamond production, you will see that sales through this organization—and we in South Africa, including the Government, use this organization to sell our diamonds—dropped by no less than 23 per cent compared with 1969. Normally this would not worry me very much because we know that the diamond trade is a very sensitive trade and that it reacts very easily to world conditions. We know loo that through a wonderful form of control by the central selling organization we have managed over the years to counteract any falling off in the demand for diamonds. There are certain trends at the moment which certainly give cause for concern. One of these is the fact that in the past when anybody tried to market diamonds outside of the central selling organization it has been a very short-lived effort. I remember clearly that Williamson a few years ago decided that he had had enough of the central selling organization. He then decided to market diamonds himself in London. His diamonds lay there for three or four months and nobody looked at them. In no time at all he was back within the organization. Today there is an entirely different trend, and I think that it may be politically motivated. We know that Russia has today come onto the market as a very big seller of diamonds, so much so that in the year 1970 Russia sold diamonds in Great Britain to the value of more than R112 million. I want to say that, according to my information, they are prepared to sell these diamonds far below the price charged by the central selling organization. This is an aspect that worries me. I think we all realize the tremendous role, the almost vital role, that diamonds have played and, I believe, will continue to play in the economy of South Africa. There can be no doubt that if this selling on the part of Russia is really serious, it will eventually affect the diamond market. It will most certainly affect the economy of this country. I raise the matter merely because I believe that the hon. the Minister will have information about this new trend. Possibly he will be able to tell this House what the implications are.

Sir, I have been told, too, that the diamonds put on the market by the Russians are diamonds of a particularly good quality. They are processed and polished in Russia and I believe that the processing is of an exceptionally high standard. This suggests that they are using very sophisticated machinery in Russia to process diamonds today. I know that the hon. the Minister may say to me: “What do you suggest?”. I have no suggestions to make, but I believe that because of the importance of the diamond industry this Government should do everything in its power to find out what the true position is and possibly to assist De Beers Company and the central selling organization to counteract any serious threat posed by the Russians.

Then, Sir, there is a third point I should like to raise. It has worried me for a long time that the production of rough diamonds is tending to fall in South Africa. With the exception of the Finch Mines, we know that most of our mines are nearing the end of their lives. I have it on very good authority that the De Beers Company spent an enormous amount during 1970 on prospecting for new fields, and all this came to nothing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall begin by replying to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I want to agree with him at once that the diamond industry is going through a difficult time. He indicated certain factors, amongst other things the fact that the diamond market is very sensitive to economic circumstances in the world. The world economy today is certainly not favourable for the diamond industry. The other factor he mentioned is the ever increasing quantities of diamonds from Russia which are appearing on the market, and particularly the London market. I can just say that I have certain information in this regard which I would not like, and with good reason, to disclose to this House or in public. I am convinced that this matter is in very competent hands and, further, that not one of the factors which are causing the diamond industry to have a difficult time, originated in South Africa. I think that the hon. member will agree with that. All possible steps are being taken by the bodies in question, and certainly have the blessing and also the support of this Government, if it can be given, to deal with these problems.

The other matters which the hon. member raised were in connection with the commission of inquiry which was appointed. I may say that this is the first time in its history that a commission with such wide terms of reference has been appointed in regard to the diamond industry. I could just inform the hon. member that the commission has already met twice; that the commission has received representations from interested persons, who all asked for an extension until the end of April to enable them to submit memoranda. This extension was granted and the commission will meet early next month to consider the memoranda and to hear evidence. To my regret I must also inform hon. members that one of the members, Mr. W. C, du Plessis, a former diplomat and Administrator of South-West Africa and also member of this House, has unfortunately requested that we accept his resignation because he has other obligations which make it impossible for him to continue serving on the commission. I am at the moment considering the appointment of a substitute for Mr. Wennie du Plessis. So much then, as far as the hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned.

The hon. member for Welkom praised and paid tribute to the mine worker and expressed appreciation for what the mineworker has done in South Africa. I think that if there is one workers’ corps in the Republic of South Africa that deserves the appreciation of and tribute from the entire country, then it is the mineworkers, and let me say at once that it is very fitting that such tribute should come from a member of the National Party and from no one else. The hon. member emphasized a significant fact here, which is that although this party has been in power for 23 years there is, with a few minor exceptions, not a single mineworkers’ constituency which is not Nationalist, because the mineworker knows where his salvation lies.

What about Boksburg?

Boksburg is Nationalist; there sits the hon. member for Boksburg. [Interjections.] We are dealing with mineworkers’ matters and not the provincial councils. Sir, the hon. member came forward here with facts to indicate why this is so. It is this side of the House that has consistently realized not only that the mineworker and his widow should be looked after, but also that the mineworker, as with any other worker, is proud of his own language. It is that side which did not even give the mineworker his work contract in his own language. It is this side, Sir, which brought security to the mineworker. The National Party never fired on mineworkers. I know of a party that has already fired on them. That is why I am grateful to the hon. member for Welkom for once again emphasizing this fact, for it was necessary that it should be mentioned.

The hon. member for Springs made a plea here, and also mentioned certain figures, which were correct, to the effect that heart disease should be accepted as an industrial disease. Sir, we have often considered this. It is of course true that heart disease is the biggest cause of death in South Africa, in regard to the mineworker as well as any other profession. But because we are mindful of the fact that there may possibly be other diseases which may also be caused as a result of a mine worker’s activities, we not only established the Medical Research Council, but also the Institute for Industrial Diseases, which is now able to investigate these matters and indicate whether such a disease is caused by the working conditions and, if so, whether it is a compensatable disease. I shall certainly bring this matter very specifically to the attention of the Institute for Industrial Diseases. I also want to point out to the member that a very small number of mineworkers eventually die of pneumoconiosis. The cause of death among our mineworkers is on a par with the cause of death among the rest of the population, and that is why it is so difficult to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty whether a disease was caused by the working conditions of the individual or not, but this is a task for the researcher and I have confidence in them; I have confidence that the necessary attention will be given to this very important matter and that the necessary advice will be given to the Government.

The hon. member also mentioned here that it has always been this side of the House in particular that made pleas on behalf of the mineworker. Sir, I want to state here tonight, because it is true, that there are various bodies, sometimes members on the opposite side of the House as well, who make pleas to me on behalf of the mineworkers. There is the Mineworkers’ Union and there are other bodies, but there is no body that takes more positive steps on behalf of the mineworker than the mining group of the National Party caucus. There are certain things which were done in this Budget for which no one else pleaded, not even the Mineworkers’ Union, but which resulted exclusively from the efforts of the members of this group.

Politics!

No. Let me give you a practical example, Sir. Here in this Budget anomalies which existed in regard to widows’ pensions were rectified. The anomalies have now been rectified, and this involves 4 591 widows.

Did they see the Budget beforehand then?

I saw it beforehand. And I was there to convey the pleas of the mining group to the Minister of Finance, and I would not have known about it if they had not made that plea to me; that is all I want to say. The pensions of 4 591 widows were increased from R50 per month to R60 per month. The pensions of 793 have now been consolidated and increased from R59 to R60. The pensions of the 269 who were receiving R65 we could of course not reduce. They will retain that amount, but these anomalies have now been eliminated as a result of the efforts of the members of the National Party mining group.

But how did you know then that there was going to be an anomaly?

It existed.

Sir, I should like hon. members to pay heed to what is happening here. The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me how they knew that there was going to be an anomaly. This is, however, an anomaly which has existed for years. He knows nothing about this matter. It was an existing anomaly which has now been rectified. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member because he does not have any knowledge of this matter.

I come now to something he does have knowledge of, viz. holes. The hon. member did not say anything about the biggest one; this is of course at Kimberley. The hon. member put certain questions to me in regard to sink-holes, but before he did that, he also referred sneeringly here to the plea which had been made by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. Sir, he is the last person who should refer sneeringly to pleas from this side of the House. When his party was in power the maximum amount for a mineworker, who was no longer able to work, who was at the end of his tether, a mineworker with a wife and one child, was R38-75.

Disgraceful!

He wrote about it in Die Kruithoring.

Today he is receiving R137, and if it is in any way possible, we are even going to increase it,

But it was not the deflated Nationalist rand.

That hon. member is the last person who should refer sneeringly to my colleague who was pleading here for the vast majority of his voters. He pleaded for a very sensible thing.

The hon. member put a question to me in regard to sink-holes. Let me say that in the Oberholzer, Bank and Venterspost compartments 209 sinkholes of various sizes and depths have so far developed. This is a serious matter, a matter which makes all of us feel very uneasy. But I want to say tonight that from the moment attention was drawn to this matter, the Government and the State Co-ordinating Technical Committee on Sinkholes comprising Dr. Enslin and his people, made superhuman efforts to deal with this matter. A tremendous amount of work was done, and vast sums of money spent. The mines have so far spent R20 460 089 in regard to sinkholes. The State has already, since 1964, spent R¾ million to make certain whether or not these areas are safe. The hon. member put a question to me in regard to the school, because this is important. Let me say this. Further drilling operations with six drilling rigs—please note, six drills, which indicates how serious we regard this matter to be—were carried out at the Western Areas school during the period the school was closed. These boreholes indicated that that ground was in fact safe, and if it had not been safe, we would not have hesitated to recommend that the school be closed. But now I want to say this. Apart from the tremendous amount of work which has been done, science is also fallible. The hon. member must not ask me whether I can say that the area is 100 per cent safe. I cannot give him a reply to that question. What I can in fact tell him is that science, although it is fallible, has been proved to this extent that not one single area this Committee indicated as being safe has so far proved to be unsafe. Pray Heaven that we may never be wrong, I am therefore confident that the advice which is being given is of the highest calibre and is as reliable as it can possibly be. But now I want to tell the hon. member this. People are strange creatures. Do you know what happened when that sinkhole tragedy occurred at the tennis courts? It was a Saturday afternoon, and early the next morning my officials were there to make an inspection, before 9 o'clock, and less than 50 yards away a game of bowls was in full swing.

On a Sunday?

Yes, these are people who play on Sunday. But in this connection I want to give the assurance that I am more than satisfied with and feel reassured by the advice we received from this committee, and I think that the inhabitants of that area and the public are very grateful to them for the wonderful work which has been done there.

Then the hon. member for Odendaalsrus made a plea for preferential treatment for the mineworker. Actually, he was pleading for something which already exists. The mineworker of South Africa has always received not only sympathy, but preferential treatment and attention from the Government, as the hon. member knows. The hon. member went on to talk about circumstantial assistance and related it to a specific proposal for a tax rebate for the mineworkers. He motivated this by saying that the type of work they do and the health risk they run were important, and that is true. This is of course a matter solely for the Minister of Finance to decide on. But I want to tell the hon. member that since there is joint responsibility in the Cabinet for such decisions, the hon. member will also understand that there are various categories in our country, such as the Police on our borders, who are also doing work entailing risk and it is extremely difficult to make an exception in regard to a specific matter like taxation. What I do want to say, and I shall have more to say about this later, is that with the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act we shall very clearly have to give attention to circumstantial assistance in regard to other industrial diseases as well; and not only other industrial diseases, but we shall have to revise the whole concept of the Pneumoconiosis Act in this sense that we would prefer to maintain the view in this Act that it is work entailing risk. And if the hon. member was making a plea in that direction, as it appeared to me to be the case, he certainly asked for something which we are at present engaged on, something which is in the preserves of the policy of the department’s activities, and we will certainly, arising out of his plea as well, have to give more and more serious attention to this matter and to the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act. I may just mention to the hon. member that since he has asked for circumstantial aid and preferential aid—this is also for the ears of the hon. member for Orange Grove—that in 1948 less than R2 million was paid out to these people. Last year it was almost R7 million and as far as research is concerned, since we are now discussing work entailing risk, and industrial diseases, we have at the moment provided R438 600 in the Budget for research in regard to the mining industry alone. I am grateful to him for having broached this matter so specifically. Then he mentioned a second matter, that the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister should perhaps make an investigation into the goldfields, and particularly in his constituency in the Free State. The hon. member referred to the discussions we had, and since this is such an important region in the Republic, I have no doubt that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, with the necessary support of the Minister of Economic Affairs and myself, will in due course have such an investigation made, or have possibly decided on this already, Unfortunately I do not at this moment have any information as to what progress has been made with this matter.

Then the hon. member for Von Brandis discussed a very important matter, i.e. the export of ores. I was convinced he was discussing base minerals. It is important because our gold production will undoubtedly have to be replaced with the processing of base minerals, but also with the export of ore. But there are different aspects to this matter, and let me say at once that the hon. member was wrong. He spoke of “complete confusion in this respect’’, and he asked whether I as Minister of Mines could not bring co-ordination to this whole matter of the export of ore. I want to assure the hon. member that the necessary co-ordination is there, but the persons and the department responsible for this coordination is not the Department of Mines, but the Minister and the Department of Planning. In fact, as far as my Department is concerned, we are fully satisfied that there is no lack of co-ordination in this connection. That there have in fact been delays—for very good reasons—is true. But now I want to tell the hon. member that as far as the export of ore is concerned, it of course affects different minerals, as he mentioned. Secondly, we must be very careful not simply to export ore and leave nothing for posterity, as may possibly now appear, or has emerged very clearly in regard to coal and coke. Iron ore is in a different category, for we are aware of the fact that the quantities of economically exploitable iron ore are of such a nature that even if we undertake the maximum processing in South Africa and also export large quantities of iron ore, in whatever form, there is still sufficient reserves left for hundreds of years in South Africa, That is a fortunate situation. I think that at present approximately 8 million tons are being processed every year in South Africa, but I am speaking under correction. We are aware of 5 000 million tons. My information is that Iscor is no longer prospecting for ore at places where ore has not yet been discovered.

Why in the light of this is the St. Croix project not being developed.

I shall come to that in a moment; I would first like to dispose of this aspect. Perhaps hon. members and the public do not realize what tremendous demands are now being made. For years our mining industry was based principally on gold. Gold in its processed form, as hon. members know, is a small item to handle. Gold bars can be transported by aircraft or by ship and do not need railway networks. That was the case for many years, but now, quite suddenly, we have had to change over to the transport of crude ore in large quantities, something quite non-comparable with the demands made by the transporting of gold bars. Hence the tremendous adjustments which we are having to make, which constitute alarming financial implications, particularly for the S.A. Railways. This brings me to export harbours like Saldanha Bay, St. Croix and others. The decisive factor is the availability or non-availability of enormous quantities of money which will have to be spent to transport the ore, and this being the case a Government cannot lightly take a decision without having all the facts at its disposal. But I can inform hon. members that this matter is also causing us concern and that we are giving this matter continual attention. A tremendous effort is being made to construct the necessary railway network, as we have just done for coal in regard to Richard’s Bay. This includes the provision of the necessary harbour facilities for exporting ore. As far as the export of ore is concerned, the Department’s premise is that as much refinement as possible must take place in South Africa itself before proceeding to export ore.

The hon. member for Etosha indicated very effectively that the existing labour shortage was not as the hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Rosettenville had indicated. The hon. member was quite right is pointing out that for the first time now in 10 years there is a shortage of Bantu labour on the mines. This is, however a temporary shortage, as all interested parties have in fact indicated.

The hon. member for Etosha also discussed mine accidents. Here there is a downward trend and not, as hon. members opposite wanted to suggest, an upward trend. I shall return to this point again later. In this connection I want to express the hope that the Chamber of Mines campaign will have turned out to be even more successful than it has been during the past few months. The programme they have drawn up was originally supposed to last 24 months. However, this has now been extended.

Another important matter raised by the hon. member for Etosha was that in regard to the functions of Geological Survey. With the exception of special matters, such as those in regard to coal, we do not need commissions of inquiry to tell us where our mineral wealth is situated. Geological Survey has already done great work in this regard and is still engaged on it, apart from what is being done by private industries. Our problem with Geological Survey is that we cannot find the necessary staff. Geological Survey is not divorced from the Public Service. That is perhaps where the bottle point lies, as is also the case in other scientific directions.

The hon. member for Jeppes attacked the hon. member for Stilfontein for having in all seriousness pleaded for the mineworker. Now I just want to tell the hon. member for Jeppes that there are many members here who can speak with authority on mineworkers’ matters. There is no one who can speak with greater authority than the hon. member for Stilfontein, because he worked underground in mines for most of his life and is in continual contact with these people. The hon. member for Jeppes also dealt with the important matter of base minerals, and I shall elaborate further on that topic when I reply to the hon. member for Virginia, who raised this matter in the first place. However, I should nevertheless like to say a few words to the hon. member for Jeppes in regard to his remarks on labour and future requirements. He mentioned certain figures here and said that 180 000 would at a certain stage be necessary. Where he got his figures from, and how accurate they are, I do not know.

The Chamber of Mines. What is wrong with that?

I will make this concession to the hon. member, there is nothing wrong with making forecasts. The Department, however, has to deal with the practical circumstances. I can now inform the hon. member that in 1969 there were 640 000 workers employed on our mines. This figure increased to 661 000 last year; 64 000 Whites. 590000 Bantu and 70000 Coloureds and Asiatics. The supply of Bantu labour was adequate during the past few years and there were even periods of over-supply. Therefore I do not feel any concern in this regard. In the second place, the hon. member knows that as far as Whites are concerned, there is a relative shortage. The State is doing what it can. In the first place there are the training schools. There are 13 of them. On 1st January there were 706 apprentices receiving training, and during this year this figure was supplemented by a further 787, a little less than that of last year as a result of the non-availability of people. In the second place we consented to a recruiting campaign being launched overseas to make certain that sufficient people are available for this work. There were no fewer than 10 000 inquiries overseas. Eventually I 040 turned up for interviews. Of this number 351 single persons and 376 young married men, a total of 727, were recruited. They are now coming out to South Africa in a slow stream. In regard to labour, the Government has also indicated very clearly, and I do not want to cover all the ground again this evening, that the Bantu in the Bantu homelands may do more responsible work in mining and eventually do the most responsible work, unlike in the White area. The hon. member for Rosettenville put a question to me in regard to training. I went out of my way on various occasions, I think five altogether, to meet people, from the Secretary of the Mine-Workers’ Union to the Executive Committee and the General Council, to clarify the policy of the Government. The outcome was that the Mine Workers’ Union indicated that they as a union were not prepared to undertake to train Bantu for more responsible work in the Bantu homelands. Now hon. members will ask me what the standpoint of the Government in this regard is, and I want to say at once that the Government has only one standpoint in this regard. It has never been Government policy to intervene to compel mineworkers to do certain work, such as training. This is a matter which has to be negotiated between employer and employee. What is more, there have in any case been no complaints to me on the part of employers that they will experience problems in training the Bantu when the time comes.

We are talking about the 20 000 Whites who will be needed within the next 15 years within the White area.

We shall accommodate them in our mining schools. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the other matters which he mentioned were matters which could more properly be discussed partly with the Minister of Labour and partly with the Minister of National Education, and which are not a responsibility of the Department of Mines.

The hon. member for Stilfontein also raised the question of the more regular transfer of mine inspectors, which should also perhaps take place at shorter intervals. The intention is of course that one has more efficient inspection when people are not kept too long in one place. I do not know whether that is the case. I may just inform the hon. member that it is our policy to transfer officers approximately every five years. This, of course, entails expenses and inconvenience, for the officials as well. The problem is that many of them have to find their own accommodation. Once they have found it, it is a tremendous burden which is being placed on the officer if he is transferred from one centre to another without at the same time being promoted. Then one runs the risk of losing these officers. It frequently happens. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I also feel that the regular transfer of our mine inspectors, perhaps at shorter intervals, could only have a beneficial effect. We shall probably give more attention to that matter and pay more diligent heed to having these transfers take place in future, as we find it practical.

The hon. member also referred to a good offices committee in regard to service pensions. What is at issue here now, is not pneumoconiosis pensions. I want to tell the hon. member now that I have given attention to this matter. The hon. member raised the matter as a result of the same concern which I and others also have, i.e. that upon retirement, the service pension of a mineworker is in many cases so small that he does not have a proper subsistence. The hon. member knows that this is also a matter which is negotiated between employer and employee. The reason for the pension being so small is that the pension fund is still a relatively new one. It has only existed since 1949. I think that if it had not been for the late Daan Ellis, this fund would not yet have existed. The year before last I asked the economic advisor of the Prime Minister to go into this matter. In other words, what the hon. member is now asking me to do for the mineworkers, I have already asked the economic advisor of the Prime Minister to do for me. He pointed out to me that there was only one possible way in which these pensions could be increased, and that it would mean that the State would have to pay a minimum of R334 million into this pension fund. This information was conveyed to the mineworkers. In any case they agreed that the mining industry would not be able to support it, and that there was no other way in which to improve it than a donation to the fund. In other words, they appreciate the circumstances.

But now I want to mention another point in this regard, i.e. that it is not an easy matter either merely to render assistance to the mineworkers’ trade unions, for what is at issue here is only the gold mining industry, while pension funds cover four different funds. The next point I want to mention is that this fund is managed by a management committee of 11 members, five of which are appointed by the mining industry and five by the trade unions. The chairman is usually a magistrate. From time to time this fund is assessed by actuaries. In this way these pensions were, as a result of this assessment, increased by 114 per cent at the beginning of 1969. This was done after the National Party Caucus group had raised this matter, because it had been brought to their attention from all quarters, just as it had been brought to my attention as well. We discussed the matter with the President of the Mining Trade Unions Council, who is also the president of the Federation of Mining Production Workers. He indicated, and this is very clearly his standpoint, that being able to negotiate on these matters, which have always been regarded as being their responsibility, would be viewed as interference in the rights of the trade unions. He also said that he believed that the trade unions would view it in this light that the Government believed that they were not capable of negotiating these matters for themselves; in fact, that they were too ignorant to do so. He also said that he believed that the Chamber of Mines would definitely regard it as a motion of no-confidence in the mining industry and in the trade unions. He then mentioned a third reason. He said that it was purely and simply a question of available funds, as I have also indicated. He said that the Government had already adopted the resolution and that the trade unions accepted and abided by the resolution that funds would not be donated to the pension fund. Since the Government had so decided, he said, it could not arrogate to itself the right to want a say in regard to other people’s money and affairs. Actually he put the question himself as to what else a mediator could really say than what the actuaries had established. He indicated that this, to him, was the gist of the matter. Although I might perhaps have considered conceding to the hon. member’s request, it is very difficult, and at this stage it is not possible for me to reply in the affirmative, particularly in view of the standpoint I have just mentioned, the standpoint of the Chairman of the trade union.

Then the hon. member expressed his thanks to me for the fact that the 31st May has now been declared a statutory paid holiday. Although this is what we all felt in regard to the matter, it was something which the Prime Minister had to deal with himself. He dealt with it in pursuance of the statement he made previously.

The hon. member also asked for the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act. Other members also asked for the same thing. I indicated last year that the Government had decided in principle to carry out the undertakings of my predecessors, which was that this legislation would be revised after a certain period of time, and almost 10 years have now elapsed. My Department commenced working on this matter immediately after they had received instructions to do so. I can inform hon. members tonight that the draft legislation has already been prepared and that it has only to be translated. I do not want to elaborate on the Bill in any respect, but the entire revised draft Bill is aimed at trying to accommodate the problems and complaints which have been put forward during the past nine years. One of those complaints, and this I realized without having had to consult anyone else about it, was the problem that there were too many stages. Consideration will be given to this problem in the Bill. However, I cannot go into detail on this Bill now. Hon. members asked me to refer this matter to a Select Committee, The hon. member will recall that this was not the procedure on the previous occasion. However, it seems to me that it would be a sensible decision. But I have not yet had an opportunity of raising this matter with the Cabinet; I shall do so during the course of the next week or two. I am thinking along these lines, that this draft Bill should be published—simply as a basis for discussion and nothing else— in the Gazette as soon as possible, or that it should be sent to all interested parties for comment. Secondly I think that the interested parties should be consulted with the specific purpose of introducing the revised Bill during the 1972 session. This is my intention, unless the discussions make it impossible for us. In addition I shall give very serious attention to this matter and put it to the Cabinet that we should consider referring this Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister what the position of South-West Africa is in regard to this amended legislation? This matter has been raised with the Minister before.

Yes, I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. He will recall that I undertook that South-West Africa would also be included in the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. This should already have been done. But because we were contemplating this revision, we decided that this should form part of the entire revision of the legislation. This will most certainly be done. In fact, it is also contained in this draft which I have on me.

May I also ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are the interested parties to whom he referred, to whom he is going to send a copy of this draft Bill, also going to include the two mining groups of the two parties, or not?

No. The Bill will be sent to the political parties at the appropriate time. I regard interested parties as people in the industry or the mineworkers themselves. Now, the hon. member should really leave this to me. If I want to discuss this matter with my own people, then I do so. Otherwise I think it would be an incorrect procedure. Of course, if it were published in the Gazette, then it would be there for everyone to see, but this is a matter which I still have to consider. It would perhaps be wiser to send it to the parties in question, with a covering letter.

Then, the hon. member for Virginia did my heart good this evening for he once again emphasized the importance of mining, as is fitting in a country like South Africa because it is of the utmost importance, I am so glad that he emphasized that we must realize that this is an ever-dwindling asset and that it is not an inexhaustible resource. I can assure the hon. member that it is the specific function of my Department and myself to guard against the export of certain ores, although economic benefits may result from doing so, if this is not in the interests of South Africa.

Now I should also just like to mention a few figures which I am certain the House will find interesting. For the first time last year the yield from mining operations exceeded the R1 500 million mark. Of that amount slightly more than half was derived from gold, and the rest from other minerals. The actual amount was R1 563 million, in comparison with R1 486 million during 1969. This was, in other words, increase of R77 million in this one year. Then one must also take into account the fact that the mining industry did not have a good year.

The hon. member also mentioned the surveys. Now I can inform the hon. member that I cannot agree that we should appoint commissions at this stage; but I think that the Geological Survey division, the work which is being done by organizations such as Iscor, by private organizations and of course now by the Planning Advisory Council as well, is sufficient at this stage. I may just say to the hon. member that we have of course taken specific steps to protect our tiger's eye reserves. Of course it is not impossible that we may do the same in future in regard to other minerals.

The hon. member for Rosettenville again raised the question of the homelands, and inter alia asked me certain questions. Now I can inform the hon. member that the procedure which will be followed is that an application will be made by the owners of a specific mine in a homeland for certain exemptions which will make it possible for Bantu to do more responsible work in that mine. Such applications are made to the Government Mining Engineer. In the normal course of events he will discuss it with the parties in question and make his recommendations to me. We have already indicated under what conditions we shall grant such exemptions; I do not think it is necessary for me to mention them again here this evening. I may tell the hon. member that there have been such applications. Those applications were not disposed of, but at the moment there are no applications for they have all indicated that they do not want to proceed any further with the matter. This is not connected in any way with the policy of the Government. It is not in any way connected with the fact that they have problems as far as the Government Mining Engineer is concerned. In this specific case, the only one which remains is connected with the decrease in the price of platinum, as a result of which that mine is not at this stage going any further with its development. This is the situation at present.

The hon. member then discussed the very high accident Tate and expressed his concern about it. We are of course also concerned about the very high accident rates, but I do want to make it very clear to the hon. member that the accident rates in South African mines is not increasing, but is slowly decreasing. In fact, since mining began in South Africa—since 1925 and before that year, but I only have the figures since 1925 here—there has not been an increase in the number of accidents, although the number of labourers have doubled, the tonnage of ore has trebled and, as the hon. member for Etosha said, we are now mining at tremendous depths. Taking all these things into consideration, I think the record is a good one, but it is just as well that we are again making this appeal to everyone in the mining industry that we should try to improve on this reasonably good record in the years which lie ahead. We were fortunate in that in 1970 there was no accident that claimed the lives of more than six people.

Then the hon. member raised a question of pneumoconiosis post-mortem examinations, etc. He correctly indicated that there were 241 after death certifications. But I do want to point out to the hon. member as a scientist—I agree with him—that the diagnoses of pneumoconiosis is no easy matter; there are scientific problems involved. We will probably never have a complete scientific answer, but this after death certification takes place after a postmortem has been held, after microscopic tests have been made which cannot be made while the subject is living, and after several of these mineworkers did not return for a re-examination. The hon. member pointed out that the pension was such that the person did not have much time to use his pension. In this regard I want to say that we are trying to deal with this matter in the revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act. I do just want to point out that compensation is already being paid today in the case of chronic bronchitis and lung cancer under certain circumstances, and also in cases of mesothelioma. But hon. members must view the entire revision of the Pneumoconiosis Act in conjunction with the establishment of the Institute for Occupational Diseases, for that will be the instrument which will render service to mining, to labour, to the Railways, to any other industry, to undertake the necessary scientific research and produce the data so that a decision can be made as to whether a disease is compensatable or not.

Lastly the hon. member asked me a question in regard to tuberculosis cases among the Bantu, which I am also concerned about. I can give him the assurance that they are being treated in the mine hospitals and that they are not sent back before they have been cured or before we are certain that they will not spread contagion. Since they are now returning to the Bantu homelands, and we now have a hospital-centric service under the Department of Health, which is responsible for the administration and the control, and since our clinics are now being expanded, our followup services will be much better than they ever were before, provided of course we can get the staff.

Sir, with this I think that I have replied to all the questions. I must say that this discussion was one of the least heated discussions I have ever experienced under tins Vote, but it was nevertheless a constructive discussion. For that I am grateful to hon. members.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 29.—“Health”, R36 330 000, and 30.—“Health: Hospitals and Institutions", R21 205 000, add S.W.A. Vote No. 15.—“Health”, R710 000:

The hon. the Prime Minister, I mean the hon. the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is kind of you.

That sounds rather presumptuous.

My colleague is getting concerned about his position. Mr. Chairman, I am not getting up to introduce the debate. I shall follow the same procedure as in the case of Mines, namely to reply at the end of the debate. I am just getting up to make an announcement which I think is of importance to the whole of South Africa. It concerns the question of yellow margarine. Hon. members will know that at the moment it is provided by law that yellow margarine may not be marketed, imported or sold. The Government has decided that margarine may in fact be coloured yellow in future. This will be allowed by wav of a permit, in order to ensure, inter alia, that monopolies do not arise and that the best possible ingredients are included in it, and also with a view to controlling its being mixed with other ingredients. This is a very important matter to every consumer as well as to the farmer. The price of margarine is half to two-thirds that of butter. At present there is in fact a tremendous shortage of butter in South Africa. This is a well-known fact. Furthermore, we know there is a surplus of vegetable oils from which margarine is manufactured. At the same time, we also know that margarine has a very beneficial effect in regard to the blood cholesterol level. In view of the alarming incidence of heart disease in South Africa, it is a progressive step to provide not only butter, but also margarine to the public of South Africa.

Will it be cheaper than butter?

At present the price of margarine is half to two-thirds that of butter. In addition, I want to point out that the colouring agent that will be used will not be an artificial one. It may be a natural carotene. In fact, my information is that this will be the case. Section 15 (1) (c) of the Dairy Industry Act, Act No. 30 of 1961, provides that yellow margarine may not be sold, imported or marketed. In this session the Minister of Agriculture will introduce an amending Bill to make it possible for margarine to be coloured yellow in South Africa. Furthermore, I want to point out that it will in fact be a supplementary product for the farming industry. I want to point out to hon. members that in a country such as Holland, which has a big dairy industry, excellent yellow margarine is also manufactured. In other words, it is supplementary. I should like our public and the farming community to regard this decision of the Government which will bring about this change, in that light.

In Australia as well.

Yes.

Then I just want to make one observation in regard to the heart transplant recently performed in Groote Schuur. We are extremely grateful to hear that Mr. Van Zyl is recovering so wonderfully well. This operation is all the more an achievement in that the whole world has not ventured upon this field for several months. But our scientists, in whom we have the greatest confidence, have ventured upon this field again and have achieved success. We want to congratulate them on that. For South Africa this is an achievement which we regard very highly. At the same time I want to say that we should maintain our balance in this regard and that we should not underestimate the work of the Medical Research Council in connection with other research which may help not only individuals in the community, but perhaps the masses. It is up to the industrialists, the large financial houses and benefactors to place funds at the disposal of the Medical Research Council, a council which consists of 13 of the best people in medical science in South Africa. With that money we receive from them, we shall be able to serve mankind and South Africa as a whole in the field of research. Although I do not want to detract in any way from this great achievement, I should like the balance to be maintained between cases where the individual can be helped and cases where large numbers of people can be helped.

Mr. Chairman, the news about the colouring of margarine is welcome. I think it is high time the Minister made this announcement. We on this side of the House have been waiting for this for years. The hon. member for Umbilo earlier this session asked for margarine to be coloured yellow, and I think he was given a negative reply.

No, not quite negative.

Yes, it was one of those vacillating governmental replies. Sir, I join with the hon. the Minister in congratulating those wonderful people who are doing such excellent work in our hospitals. The name of South Africa is held very high in the word of medicine, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is due to the workers and not to the help the Government has given them. We have some brilliant people working in our hospitals. Our research workers are probably some of the most wonderful in the world.

Who is financing the hospitals?

The taxpayer.

Well, that is the Government.

Sir, let me say that my hon. colleague sitting over there has a fund going which is supported by the public …

He should give it to the Medical Research Council.

Never! We use it better.

Through that fund the people of South Africa have contributed very liberally towards a particular research effort in Cape Town. Other research work and practical work is being undertaken in other hospitals. This is the published, glamorous picture we see, but during the 23 years of this Government’s rule we have seen a gradual deterioration in the general health services of our country. They have failed year after year to show any sign of planning for the future.

Nonsense.

If they had in fact had plans for the future, we would be receiving the benefits of those plans now, but what do we find? Just the opposite. I want to say that if we continue to follow the road we are following now without making provision for the future, the future is going to be chaotic. That future is going to reach us soon, not in many years to come. I lay the blame on the planners of the health service, and this Minister is in charge of those planners. I also lay the blame at the door of the Cabinet to a certain extent for failing to provide a proper health service for our country. If this Minister could stand by and see the health services provided for the Bantu homelands being given over to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development without seeing that the facilities which are available are satisfactory, then I blame this Minister for any chaotic situation that may result in the future. I hate to give examples of this, because it does not do the name of South Africa any good.

You cannot.

The hon. member says I cannot. What has happened since the service has been given over to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in Natal?

You tell us.

Perhaps you do not know? You should know. In one hospital doctors are working 90 hours per week. How many doctors are there in this hospital? Only six, and two of them have threatened to resign because of the conditions there.

What was the position before?

What does your paper say was the position before?

They say:

If the hon. member wants to know what the position was before, I want to say that it was probably as bad as it is now. It is for this House to decide whether or not this Government is responsible for those conditions. Conditions should be improving and not deteriorating. But in this case they are deteriorating. This is the sort of thing that happens and what is the reason for it? Pure bad planning.

No, bad provincial council in Natal. We took it over from them.

I want to read to the hon. the Minister, in case he has not read it himself, what one of the members of the provincial council who is responsible for health services, says. He says:

Who said so?

This is a provincial councillor whose name is Mr. Watterson. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether or not he did come to Cape Town to discuss the matter with him.

I have never seen the man in my life.

Do you have deputies who see him?

I have never seen him in my life.

Then you must deny this in the newspapers.

Why?

The country well knows, because of what I have said in this House, that we are desperately short of nurses. The Minister also knows quite well that we are desperately short of doctors. For years I have asked for more students to be allowed to enter medical schools. The numbers of doctors we produce today cannot keep pace with the population demands. They cannot keep pace now and will fail to keep pace in the future if the hon. the Minister does not do something about it. He has to give the lead. He cannot pass the buck to the hon. the Minister of Education. He has to tell the Minister of Education what the needs are. In 1968 we produced 393 doctors. In 1969 we produced 420 doctors. This is a rise of 27. That is the improvement that we have had in one year.

It is a good seven per cent.

The hon. the Minister knows that twice that number leave the country for better jobs in other parts of the world. The hon. the Minister has handed over the service in respect of the Bantu, to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In 1968 the total number of Bantu doctors who qualified reached the conspicuous number of ten. In 1969, a year later, that number was no longer ten; it dropped to eight. What is the percentage now? Is that also a rise of seven per cent? Those are the men whom the hon. the Minister and this Government expect to look after the millions of Bantu in the homelands. Mr. Chairman, I am not exaggerating when I say that we face a chaotic position in the future. We have to start doing something now, however late it is. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, when he replies, what his plans are for the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was really surprised tonight to hear from the hon. member for Rosettenville that he is dissatisfied with the United Party Government in Natal. Really, I did not expect an hon. member who has had so much experience in this House, to come forward with all these unfounded accusations. I can guarantee that the hon. member did not mention one particular fact on which I can argue. He made loose accusations, only to put the United Party Government in Natal in its true perspective. The hospital to which the hon. member referred, is certainly under the administration of the provincial council in Natal at this moment. But what is the situation in Natal? Mr. Wilkes came to the provincial council some years ago and told the provincial council in Natal that hospital services are healthy. The next year we had the fiasco there with Dr. Parker. Then the provincial council was told that the hospital services in Natal are deficient. How can a person understand such a situation? That is the way the United Party governs.

*But, Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak about another matter this evening. I had the privilege of acting as district surgeon in Newcastle over a period of 13 years. I think the ordinary public and even hon. members of this House are not quite aware of the duties and the normal life of a rural district surgeon in particular. These people are performing a great task on their own, a task that calls for great sacrifice. Therefore I consider it my duty tonight to give the House some insight into what we may call the eventful life of the district surgeon. Particularly in view of the fact that there is quite a shortage of district surgeons it is perhaps necessary for me to outline to the House the problems these people have to contend with. It certainly is no easy job. In my opinion this is also one of the reasons why there are deficiencies. I think the ordinary person will not be able to imagine himself in the position of a district surgeon, who often has to work 18 to 20 hours a day almost as a matter of routine. Have hon. members ever considered the sacrifices that exposing himself to these demands requires of a doctor in respect of his family life, his peace of mind and his health? Can hon. members picture to themselves the life of a district surgeon who comes home late at night and then quickly has what is perhaps his first meal of the day? Then he goes to bed for an hour or two before being called out again and having to travel 30 to 40 miles in the district. Allow me to tell the hon. members a story. It is a story about what can happen to such a doctor. He drives up the mountain as far as he possibly can. In the process he has to drive his car through ditches and streams. Then he reaches a point where he can go no further. Then he has to carry on up the mountain on horseback. When he reaches the case, the patient has to be conveyed to his car on a sled pulled by oxen. The result is that he only reaches the hospital in the early hours of the morning. Then he has to operate on the patient and by the time the operation is over, the night is over too. Then he cannot go to bed, because then he has to perform the normal duties a district surgeon has to perform every day of his life. Perhaps we should also consider what really represents a normal day’s work for such a district surgeon. His daily task is not limited to doing rounds in the hospital wards; neither is it limited to completing his normal list of operations or visiting the clinics in the district; in between he also has to carry out autopsies. It may also happen that he has to go to court to give evidence. In between all these duties he still has to try to keep a consulting room going as well. When he is on his way to attend to those awaiting him in the consulting room, he quickly has to go and examine someone who drove while under the influence of liquor, or he has to go and attend to someone who has been assaulted. On occasion he has to go to the gaol to be present when corporal punishment is inflicted, and in addition he has to conduct gaol clinics. So one can go on quoting examples which prove that the life of these people calls for very great sacrifices to be made. As far as the travelling allowance of doctors is concerned, it is interesting to note that the allowance of 10 cents a mile, which was laid down in 1933 still applies under the present circumstances. I should like to submit a plea tonight for this whole matter to be reconsidered. The argument used to counter this is that this is more or less the tariff paid to public servants. However, it is a fact that this 10 cents a mile to a large extent has to compensate the doctor for his time as well.

Since when has this allowance been applicable?

Since 1933. These people usually have to do trips in the district and they have to travel at high speeds because of pressure of work or because it is a case of emergency. Quite often they have to go off the beaten track, as I have said. The maintenance costs of a district surgeon's car are extremely high. I think we have to take into account that the private fee paid to a doctor has been 50 cents a mile for many years. And then his normal fees are added to that. It is also interesting to know that as far back as 1873 they paid a doctor one shilling a mile in England if he had to travel by horse and buggy to go and visit a case. I should like to put in an urgent request tonight for consideration to be given to this very important matter. In addition I should like to point out to hon. members that there has been a great improvement in the treatment of our paupers and our pensioners by district surgeons. For two years now district surgeons have been able to give these people prescriptions. They can do this in the normal way and the method of compensation for medicine has now to a large extent been replaced by this. Formerly the position was that the medicine allowance was quite often insufficient. Then the district surgeon quite often had to supply paupers and pensioners with medicine at his own expense. But I want to mention that this matter was rectified quite a few years ago, and that our elderly people are receiving excellent medical services at present.

While we are discussing this point, I think it is also important just to point out briefly what facilities exist today for our elderly people to obtain medical services. As I have mentioned, there is the district surgeon, who is now able to supply all the needs of these people. Then there are the district nurses, of course, who are supplied by the municipal clinics to visit the elderly and also to provide medicine. What is much more important, perhaps, is that these people can usually receive treatment at the out-patients’ divisions of the various provincial hospitals free of charge or at a nominal fee. We should also like to mention the various welfare organizations which make an important contribution in this matter. [Time expired.)

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newcastle must have a very short memory. If he had not, he would have remembered that one of his colleagues in this House, the hon. member for Klip River, made a very interesting statement when he vacated the position of the administratorship of Natal less than a year ago. It was publicly reported that the then Administrator of Natal, Mr. Gerdener, admitted that in so far as provincial administrations were concerned, Natal led the field. When he said that, he did not make any exceptions about hospital administration. I believe he was perfectly sincere and honest when he made that statement.

You must thank him for his loyalty.

I beg your pardon?

Order! The hon. member must proceed.

Those are the facts. If the hon. member’s mind can just go across the borders of Natal, perhaps he will realize that in the Transvaal the position in so far as hospital services are concerned, is the worst in the Republic. It has been so for many years, and it is due entirely to the mismanagement and ineptitude of the Nationalist Provincial Council in the Transval.

I have been asked in the few minutes left to me this evening, to draw attention to a matter which I wish to place before the Minister for his comment, because he may have received some information in this respect. I am referring to the growing practice of tattooing which apparently is gaining in incidence among our youth. Some of the youthful members of our population in their exuberance are indulging in the practice of tattooing. According to my information, a senior medical member of the hospital staff in Cape Town has indicated his growing concern. He said this practice is taking place and that in after years, when maturity is reached, these young people realize that they had been a little unwise in indulging in this common practice of tattooing. They experience difficulty in having the tattoos removed. My information is that the medical authorities in the Cape are of the opinion that the fact that these people have the tattoo marks is proving a psychological disturbance in later life, because they are experiencing difficulty in having the marks removed. I am not aware whether this is general, but I place the matter before the Minister for his comment.

It all depends where.

I did not ask. Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Under head A of the Estimates reference is made under the administrative head-office section to the fact that the post of chief pharmacist has now been abolished. But under the heading of the Drugs Control Council, we find that under the head “Chief Pharmacist”, whereas in the past there was one chief pharmacist, now there are three posts classified as chief pharmacists. I want to ask the significance of that.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.