Mr. Chairman, would you allow me just to make an explanation? When I was leaving this Chamber on Wednesday night I made a certain remark. I should just like to make it quite clear that this was in no way a reflection on you as Chairman or on the Chair. My remark was aimed directly at the Prime Minister and not at the Chair.

Revenue Vote No. 31, Loan Vote H and S.W.A. Vote No. 18.—“Planning and the Environment”, and Revenue Vote No. 32. —“Statistics” (contd.):

Mr. Chairman, exactly two years ago, on 27th April, 1971, the Secretary for the Department of Planning, Dr. P. S. Rautenbach, said, inter alia, the following at a congress (translation)—

Then he added the following (translation)—

In pursuance of these statements I should like to touch on a few matters, and I want to make a few representations to the hon. the Minister in connection with the area immediately to the north of Pretoria. It is the area which is bounded more or less as follows: The region north of the Magaliesberg to the north of Pretoria, extending in a westerly direction more or less up to Rosslyn, in an easterly direction up to Baviaanspoort, and extending in a northerly direction more or less up to Hammanskraal. Within this region is situated the Rosslyn industrial development area, as well as the Bon Accord irrigation scheme, which is one of the oldest schemes in the Transvaal, and then, too, there are the urban areas immediately to the north of the Magaliesberg. Bon Accord is one of the most successful irrigation schemes because the catchment area of the Apies River on which this dam is built, comprises, inter alia, the tarred roads and tin roofs of Pretoria. The dam is often full and never dry. Water restrictions have never been imposed on these irrigation farmers.

But, Sir, a heavy blow struck them two years ago when a pest known as the golden eel-worm or the golden nematode was discovered; this is an extremely difficult pest to exterminate; it costs something in the region of R700-R800 per morgen to fumigate the pest and even then there is no certainty that one has exterminated it. It was of vital importance to South Africa as a while for this region to have been placed under quarantine forthwith because inadequate action by the authorities could affect South Africa’s exports of certain products. But. Sir, the unfortunate fact is that the livelihood of those farmers, who have been supplying Pretoria with fresh vegetables for decades, has been hard hit as a result of the quarantine regulations which, quite rightly, had to be imposed. The agricultural value of the contaminated land has apparently dropped substantially, and financially the farmers are suffering distress and hardship. From the point of view of planning this area, one asks oneself whether this land could not be utilized in some other way and whether a more effective use for the water of Bon Accord could not be found. This is water which is available in a region which is developing rapidly. The dam, with the present height of its wall, contains sufficient water to supply a city of between 80 000 and 100 000 people, and one therefore asks oneself whether this water and this land ought not to be utilized for other purposes.

It would be much to the advantage of the State to buy this land and water. From the point of view of the planning of this whole region to the north of the Magaliesberg, this possibility ought to carry much weight, and I should like to ask the Minister to consider this in the completion of the guide-plan for this region, which we hope will be soon.

Sir, we have the situation north of Pretoria that we are bordering on Mabopane and Ga Rankuwa, part of the embryo-state of Bophuthatswana. I want to say at once that the vast majority of the voters of Wonderboom gladly accept the challenges with which this neighbourship presents us. Not only do they accept it gladly, but they also accept it with great responsibility. But, Sir, this has given rise to certain bottlenecks and problems in the field of transport. Fortunately I am in the position that I can now say that we are thankful to the Minister of Transport for his announcement that a railway line will be built from Mabopane to Wintersnest. However, the traffic has already become intolerably heavy. Fifty thousand Bantu are transported every day from Mabopane and Ga Rankuwa to Pretoria. The buses cause the traffic to be extremely heavy. We should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to help us, as far as his department is concerned, to facilitate the planning and construction of the envisaged transport network as a matter of urgency in order to alleviate this problem, and in addition we want to ask that the guide-plan for this region which I have sketched, be completed as soon as possible in the light of the problems which I have outlined. I think it is of importance to South Africa as a while that this area between Bophuthatswana and the capital of South Africa be developed in an orderly and balanced way and for promoting relations between Bophuthatswana and White South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect that I want to raise, one which is associated with planning in this region and, possibly with planning in South Africa as a whole, and this concerns the basic objectives and functions of the department. The functions of the Department of Planning, it would appear to me, involve mainly overall direction and very few functional executive functions. Sir, this is almost akin to an architect drawing up an excellent plan for a building, but not keeping an eye on the execution of the plan or the construction of the building. One has this kind of problem in Pretoria, which I just want to mention as an example, although I think that some of these problems possibly occur in all constituencies. As a result of the heavy traffic which I have mentioned at Wonderboom station and Pretoria North station, one finds that thousands of Bantu get off the train and then catch a bus or, vice versa they get off the buses to catch a train. When the Bantu gets off the train, he walks over a bridge for pedestrians; but then he runs across double lanes of traffic to catch the bus. The Bantu sees the bus approaching and he then runs blindly across to the opposite side of the double road and as a result the death toll and the accident rate there is amazingly high; it is alarmingly high.

The office of the Chief Traffic Officer of Pretoria reported on this long ago. Now one has the situation that the Railways quite rightly says that its responsibility ends at the boundary of its reserved railway land. Initially the Municipality had a shortage of funds. Then I approached the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and they said that they would consider making money available for the building of a foot-bridge, because this chiefly involved facilities for Bantu. I then returned to the Municipality of Pretoria and this time they said that they had a shortage of manpower. The Provincial Administration in turn, has certain problems because the banks of the Apies River and the pavements fall under the jurisdiction of the Municipality. In the meantime, the years go by; people are knocked down and killed; the family of the Bantu who is run over and killed, nurses a grievance; the White man is resentful because in his view the Bantu ran over the road recklessly. Sir, this is a point of friction which can be eliminated through co-ordination, and one wonders in cases like this—I am not accusing any one—whether this is not a function for Planning, i.e. to co-ordinate and to determine priorities and to say that a project of this nature should have precedence. Sir, there is the example of the abattoir. In 1935 the Pretoria abattoir was condemned for reasons of hygiene. It is still functioning today, but has been ineffectual for a long time. The producer is dissatisfied. The purchaser of that meat is dissatisfied; the consumer is dissatisfied; the whole of Pretoria is dissatisfied. But it takes years before positive action is taken. I am not criticizing the department concerned or the municipality. I am only saying that the voter is not always able to understand why it should be so. He votes for a city councillor, for a provincial councillor, for a member of Parliament, and he cannot understand why a project of this nature cannot be facilitated by his representatives; he cannot understand why there is no co-ordination and why there is no body or person who can get to grips with the matter and carry the project into effect. It is in matters like these that we wish to advocate that the Department of Planning be given more authority. Mr. Chairman, I make this plea in a spirit of goodwill, i.e. that attention be given to the possibility of giving Planning a function of this kind, namely the function of determining priorities, so as to give Planning enhanced powers for the sake of the good of South Africa as a whole; and I do this because we have confidence in the expertise of the department and its effectiveness and because we know that our descendants will be thankful for it.

Sir, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? Owing to the pressure on our time and the numbers of members who want to enter the debate, I feel that I can probably cut down what I have to say to about 20 minutes, and that is what I am aiming at.

Sir, before I come to the protection of the environment and the principles which we are about to adumbrate to see that our environment does not get degraded, I would like to deal for one moment with a cry from the heart by a gentleman called Mr. J. H. Schoeman from Ventersdorp, who wrote to my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point, and who enclosed a cutting from the Johannesburg Star dated 3rd April, 1973. This letter and this cutting, which I should like to pass on to the hon. the Minister, deal with the vandalism and the destruction of the stalactites and stalagmites in the caves we have in parts of the Transvaal. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something if he possibly can through his department. He might put on an officer to deal with this Speleological Society, to see whether something can be done to protect these treasures. If someone goes along and breaks a stained-glass window in one of our churches or places of worship, that after all can be repaired because it is the work of a man. But the destruction and the vandalism in these caves and the wonderful treasures which have come down to us and which are part of our heritage, can never be put together again by man because they were not in the first place made by man, and even the Almighty who over millions of years has prepared these treasures for us can never put them right. Once destroyed the answer will be that they are for ever destroyed, and why vandals should be allowed to do that to our places, which should be holy places, the same as our places of worship, passes my comprehension. I appeal to the Minister if possible to deal with this particular matter.

Then I want to move on to the question of the protection of the environment and the prevention of the degradation of that environment. I am privileged today to be able to say that after some five years of investigation, I am able to enunciate the principles which guide the United Party in its approach to this problem. I want to be as short as I can. The hon. the Minister will therefore forgive me if I do not come with the usual courtesies which are often appropriate at a time like this, but I want to get on with the job in hand. Therefore, I say that the approach of this party to the problem of the protection of the environment, the concept behind our principles, is that the pollution of the environment resulting from man’s activities can make the earth uninhabitable by man. On that, which we believe is a cardinal truth, we base the following cardinal principles. The State has the privilege of being the source of all legislative, administrative and financial power and authority and, in consequence, has the prime duty and responsibility, firstly, to identify and publicize pollution in all its forms; secondly, to curb and cure the present evils and prevent new sources from arising or developing; and thirdly, to prevent the degradation of the environment.

Those are our principles, the principles of the United Party, in regard to our approach to the protection of the environment and the adoption of anti-pollution measures and all that goes with the concept of the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of the Environment. Sir, we have set out a number of addenda here which we believe point to some of the features. These are by no means exhaustive but they point to some of the features which we believe should be put into operation in dealing with the implementation of those principles:

1. (1) We believe that the authority of the State should be manifest and identified in one person, the Minister of the Environment.

I draw attention to the fact that already this session we have had the Minister of Public Health coming with a particular Bill dealing with the prevention of the pollution of the atmosphere. We have had a special measure before us here introduced by the hon. the Minister of Transport dealing with certain aspects of oil pollution. The control of oil pollution all around our coasts today is in the hands of the Minister of Transport. Over the last 2-3 years we asked that the principle of control of oil pollution should be moved from the Department of Commerce and Industries to the Department of Transport. It has been done but then a full-stop came at that point instead of the issue moving on to the Minister of the Environment. Then there is the Minister of Bantu Administration, who is unfortunately not here now, and whenever there is a Bantu anywhere in the spectrum or picture of the whole of the view of South Africa, the Minister of Bantu Administration steps in to deal with him, whether it is his environment or education or his social life or his political life, you name it, he has it; he looks after the whole lot. Here then is the Minister of the Environment with the Minister of Health on one side and the Minister of Transport on the other side and the Minister of Bantu Administration—if he has three sides then naturally he is out of step—on the third side. What can the Minister of the Environment do? We believe—and that is why I put it down here as the first item on our agenda—that the power and authority of the State should vest in the Minister of the Environment, exemplified by the person of the Minister of the Environment, and pollution in any of its forms throughout South Africa should be handled by him, so that people can know as a fact that the authority they should go to is the Minister of the Environment, that he will deal with the matter. Sir, we have to have certainty as to where authority lies. It must not be a case of catch as catch can, because it may be this or that or some other department. The people who comprise the population of South Africa must be left in no doubt as to where the authority lies. There must be complete certainty and there must be a quick means of communicating with the central State authority, the Minister of the Environment, and not a circumlocutory method of going through many departments. The second item on the agenda is this:

1. (2) Research should be stepped up to identify pollution and to find its correct remedy.

We lay the greatest emphasis on this research.

1. (3) Education for people of all ages and classes through the dissemination of the fruits of research should be a special duty laid upon the State.

Sir, how are we to bring in the people, the voluntary folk, the ordinary man and woman, the ordinary citizen, not only the Whites but also the non-Whites—the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Asiatics—and get their goodwill? And we have a mass of goodwill among the ordinary people. How are we to get them to fight against pollution if it is not identified for them? How are the mass of the people to understand that there is a form of pollution in the atmosphere and that there is a form of pollution in the soil and in the very food they eat, if it is not explained to them? It must be set out and explained to them in the clearest language so that we can get their goodwill and their voluntary co-operation to help the Minister in his fight against all forms of pollution.

1. (4) A national register of pollutants and practices which degrade the environment directly or indirectly should be compiled as a matter of urgency based upon the elements affected, with cross-references, and should receive the greatest publicity as revised from time to time.

This national register will be there at all times for ready reference and easy access by the public so that they may be easily and quickly informed.

1. (5) Basic ecological instruction should be given in all school syllabi.

Here again, this is for the purpose of informing our people of all races and classes. All school syllabi should have brought into them the basic elements involved in basic ecological instruction. Sir, we have to realize that homo sapiens is part of the animal kingdom. We are part of the vertebrates; we are part of the mammals; we are part of the animal kingdom. That should be taught in the schools. You cannot hurt the environment or other creatures in the world without hurting the environment of man himself. He is part of the animal kingdom, and until that basic knowledge is instilled into our people there will be a failure to appreciate the need to combat pollution.

1. (6) All major development projects at all levels of government should be first examined and publicly reported upon by a panel of ecologists and industrial chemists.

Here I make a very special appeal to the hon. the Minister who has the very unfortunate task of having to deal with this question. There are investigations in regard to matters like the Sishen/Saldanha Bay railway. What is going to happen at Saldanha Bay or at the St. Croix-project or the Richards Bay harbour? These are the things which come quickest to mind. There was the appeal made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens yesterday in connection with the developments at Saldanha Bay and the protection of the wild life there, etc. Sir, we want to avoid what has happened in Alaska, on the north slope there, over the question of the oil pipeline. We want to have our ecological reports beforehand and let the planners have a look at those, together with reports from industrial chemists, who may be in a position to prevent us from making very grave errors. I say the hon. the Minister has my sympathy. He is rather in my opinion like the man who was standing on the trapdoor on the day of his execution, and as he stood there and they were fixing the rope round his neck, he turned to the hangman and said: “It seems to me that where I am standing now is very dangerous.” I think the Minister will forgive me if I say that where he is standing at the present moment is also very dangerous.

1. (7) A nation-wide list of proscribed undertakings in specified areas should be prepared, maintained and made available to the public.

A list of these undertakings should be prepared by the Minister and he should say in which areas he will not allow any of these undertakings, or any of these factories; that that kind of industrial development will not be permitted, but be proscribed. And that should be made easily available to the public, once again so that the people will be well informed as to where certain types of undertakings will not be permitted.

1. (8) A list of proscribed undertakings potentially capable of polluting any part of the environment should entail by statute an obligation on the part of the appropriate authority annually to present a report to the Minister of the Environment, who should lay it on the Table of Parliament detailing

1. (a) what steps had been taken to prevent any pollution of the environment;
2. (b) what, if any, latitude or permission to depart from restrictive legal conditions were authorized by the Minister; and
3. (c) if any criminal proceedings had been taken or were pending, and the outcome.

1. (9) All legal provisions in any statute to bind the State.

I want to say at once that I hope hon. members opposite will have a look at the principles which I have adumbrated here on behalf of the United Party today. We believe that those principles will cover every aspect of the protection of the environment, the necessary steps to prevent pollution of that environment and the degradation of that environment. I do want hon. members to read those principles very carefully, and not to run away with the idea that, for example, the hon. the Minister is being asked to take power to close down a power station because it is emitting noxious fumes. That is not provided for. Our principles provide for the curbing of certain practices. It may well be that that kind of practice has to be curbed, but nobody is asking that industries, undertakings of basic importance to the community, shall be arbitrarily closed down. That is the last thing. Provision is also made for the Minister to get the best help possible from organizations and bodies which are willing to come into the fight and to help on a voluntary basis. I believe that the Minister has to get that goodwill of the public behind him if he is going to succeed in his efforts to try to first curb and then to really put a stop to the practices which are now leading so fast to the pollution of the environment.

The papers today are full of various aspects of this question of pollution, the deterioration of the conditions under which we live. I come back for a moment to our original premise that it is the activities of man which can lead to making the world uninhabitable by man. This is not a figment of the imagination any longer. We heard Dr. Meiring Naude in an address about a year ago giving figures and reasons for saying that at the turn of the century —27 years from now—the world will have reached the maximum population it can carry. The rate of the growth of humanity has been such that in 27 years, according to Dr. Meiring Naude in his calculations, we will reach the limit of our capacity in so far as the world can carry human beings. The pressure of humanity is such that its works, and what flows from its works and its activities, can so pollute our environment that mankind will then cease to exist for various reasons. We need not all die at once because of a calamity. There are pollutants in the atmosphere today, there are various type of pollutants in the atmosphere which are having biological effects. I do not want to go into them all now—there are masses of literature already on the subject—but we can have biological changes in so far as mankind is concerned which are already manifesting themselves in other species and forms of animal life and which show the changes which are taking place. We do it ourselves. Some of the approaches to the control of some of the worst pests affecting the farmer, living organisms, pests in the animal world, are being dealt with now by scientists who seek to control them, to eliminate them by means of biological control; not by poisoning them with pesticides and so forth, but by means of biological control, e.g. sterilizing all the males, and so on and so forth, with a view to the extinction of that type of pest.

However, what our scientists are doing deliberately in respect of certain pests, nature may be doing for us through our own instrumentality. We may ourselves be guilty, quite unconsciously, of so polluting the atmosphere that the biological effects will come back to us in the form of changes biologically in so far as homo sapiens are concerned.

We have to take to heart what I believe is now one of these days to be set out by scientific people as a scientific principle, that we became mankind, as I said the other day, when we were able objectively to work out cause and effect in our own minds; not subjectively. We knew, when we were australepethecus, or at that stage of development, that if you hit another bloke on the head with a big stone hammer you were likely to kill him. That is subjective; we knew the cause and its effect. You hit him with a hammer and the effect was that you killed him and had a meal. But it was when we were able to objectively think out cause and effect, that we became homo sapiens. But, Sir, we are not using that facility today. We are not thinking out the effect, what is going to happen to us as a result of certain causes of which we are the origin. We are creating a system according to which we are polluting our own environment and in terms of which the degradation of our habitat is proceeding apace.

What will be the effect of this pollution? Here is where the point has to be reached where we need the best possible scientific advice, the utmost expenditure on research, the best brains we can get to carry out the research and find out where do we go. When we have obtained that knowledge let us tell the people; let the Minister then tell all the people: “This is the danger: this is what will have to be done. This will then be the result; if you do not do that, this will be the result and you, the people of South Africa, will pay the penalty.” We do not stand alone. We are not masters of our own destiny. When it comes to the pollution of the atmosphere, or, as that report said the other day, the atmosphere which is now building up over the oceans and which moves with the global winds from area to area on the surface of the earth. That is coming to us from who knows where. There is nothing we can do to stop it. But we are masters of our own destiny to a very great extent. Here, as I say, the onus has been laid on the Minister. I would say that we are very appreciative on this side of the House that the hon. the Minister’s designation has been changed so that the term “and of the Environment” has been added to his title of “Minister of Planning”. We think that by doing this a big step forward has been taken. But we believe that the Minister can bring into being, marshall and organize the voluntary resources which are available to him from well-meaning people, like Mr. Schoeman, who wrote the article “The Cry from the Heart” about the vandalism in our caves, people who say in black and white “We are willing to help—tell us what to do.” This can be done and I appeal to the Minister to utilize, as far as he possibly can, the goodwill of the public to help him. It can only come when the public has been advised and warned of the dangers that are threatening them and us, that we are all in the same boat in this regard. We cannot have a system whereby we are going to protect the White man, the Coloured and the Indian and ignore the Bantu. Nor can we protect the Bantu and not the other races. We are all part of the animal kingdom; we will protect all or we will protect none. So I wish to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister: Muster all the resources you can and if legislation is necessary, which may be harsh or strict, it will be looked upon with the very greatest sympathy from this side of the House because we feel it is necessary to come with legislation in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, before replying in detail to many of the points raised here by hon. members, I want to say something in general. I am pleased that, as far as I can see, all of us have agreed this morning, and also yesterday, on one important matter, namely that this is a very important department in the set-up of the State and that it is not only a very important department at this juncture, but that it must in future become even more important. My approach may differ from that of hon. members opposite in the sense that I do not want to rush all at once to the point where they want me to be, but that I prefer to find my way gradually, step by step, and thus to build up for the planning and the conservation of our environment a structure which rests on a firm basis and which will involve the entire population, both in its organized and in its unorganized form.

In discussing planning and our duty in this regard, we should first of all ask what we have in fact achieved. Until quite recently we in South Africa still had vast expanses of open spaces at our disposal. At that stage the problem of over-crowding did not exist. At the time it was no urgent matter to ask where a certain activity of human life was to be located. The world was full of open spaces. There was room and a great deal of room for all of us. The local community, as it was organized in town councils, planned that small area which it had at its disposal. For that I have appreciation. But the town councils did not have many problems to contend with. The provinces had an overall supervisory function, for which I also have appreciation. They did good work. At one stage they and the town councils were actually the only planners in our country. But, as I have said, there were vast expanses of open spaces, and for the most part these were ad hoc plannings from time to time. At that stage there was in actual fact no real large-scale advance planning. There is perhaps another aspect which I may mention in this regard. Hon. members and the country know—and I need not make a political point out of this —how much store was set both by the provinces and, in particular, the larger city councils on their autonomy and authority within their areas of jurisdiction. They regarded any idea of planning by the State as being interference on the part of the State. They were allergic to it. That is true, and surely we know the history of our country. In order to reach a situation where we could operate successfully, we first had to sell them the idea that the central authority had to take part in this major action in South Africa along with the provinces and local authorities. We first had to gain the confidence of these people so that we might also gain their co-operation. Now, where are we today? It is with a measure of pride but in all humility that I think I can state the fact that over the past two or three years this department of mine has succeeded in establishing machinery in which the Central Government, the provinces and the local authorities, as well as all departments and quasi-government institutions, are for the first time conferring with one another on the course we shall all have to follow together from now on. We have brought about that situation. We have won that confidence. We did not do so by simply passing an Act here in the Cape and then saying that everybody must toe the line or else! I told the people that I did not want to do their work for them. I told the Province of Natal that I was simply asking it to have discussions with me in order that we might have a plan in terms of which it could work in the interests of Natal and in the interests of all the people of Natal. The same applies to the Cape, the Cape Town City Council, to the Transvaal and Pretoria, etc. That was my approach. I am not making any apologies for that approach. I am convinced that if we had followed another course we would not have reached the stage where we are today. I think we have today the co-operation and the confidence of all these people. However, nothing is perfect. Today we are actively carrying out our co-ordination functions. I know what I am talking about. I think that in carrying out these functions we are doing a fine job of work for South Africa. Where in the past of this country was this work done in this manner? That is the reason for all these committees. The hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to know yesterday why all these committees were being appointed. They are necessary because we are entering into virtually every sphere of our public life and telling people to serve with us on committees. On such a committee a specific problem is trashed out and consideration is given to what has to be done. In almost all cases an official of my department is the chairman of such a committee. I think there may perhaps be one or two exceptions. Many threads are gathered in the Department of Planning. I feel happy about this matter. I may, for instance, tell this Committee that at present the provinces do not easily take any steps in regard to a matter before they have asked us for our opinion. The large city councils are consulting us. There is very satisfactory consultation on the part of the various Government departments. The private sector gets into touch with us and asks us whether it may do something here or there. This is still the co-ordinating function of my department, which is to a very large extent effected on a voluntary basis. That is where we are today.

Now hon. members want to know where we are going. They want us to move in a certain direction. To put it in plain terms, they want this department to be vested with even more extensive powers and to be given teeth. It would have to be able to say that a specific area should be set aside for agricultural purposes only. It would have to be able to say that an area, say, west or east of Pretoria, should be reserved for gravel products, sand, stone, etc. For instance, I would have to be able to say that the Langebaan lagoon would be used for no purpose other than that of recreation. All these things may be good. My personal opinion is that in this Country nothing may happen in respect of, for instance, laying out aerodromes, gravel quarries, etc., before my department has been consulted in that regard. The hon. member for South Coast is also aware of gravel quarries in his constituency which are offensive. Of course, in the past my department had no control over these matters. These were the responsibility of the local authorities. Then there is the question of roads.

Do you envisage further extensions of airports?

When new airports are built, this department should be able to have a say as to where they may be constructed. We are now dealing with the native soil of South Africa. One cannot build an airport today and subsequently allow it to be surrounded by built-up areas. As far as the Jan Smuts airport is concerned, we are saddled with problems in that it is partly surrounded by built-up areas. Hon. members do not know what problems we have there with the establishment of townships, etc.

But you have also had problems with bricks, not so?

The hon. member for Simonstown is angry because I put him in his place at Elliot the other night with reference to the questions he had put to me.

That is not the story I heard.

Look, I am now discussing things which are of value to South Africa. Now that hon. member comes along and raises that nonsense here. If the Opposition wants to lower the debate to that level, we can do so. We can turn the discussion on this Vote into such a debate, but then it is on their heads and not on mine. [Interjections.]

There are certain matters which, in my opinion, are so vital that my department must be consulted in that regard. Take, for instance, the establishment of townships outside our guide plan areas. I mention these things in order to show that my department is active. Take, for instance, the zoning of land for industrial purposes, to which the hon. members also referred. At present industrial land may not be zoned in South Africa without my department’s consent. Industrial townships may not be established without our consent. Subdivisions of industrial land may not take place without our consent. In this respect, therefore, we already have a very important hold on certain rights relating to the use of land. There are certain other matters which we shall look into. We are not indifferent to them. When I find that I do not have certain powers, I am willing to take those powers, but I am not going to take unnecessary powers to do things which other people can do.

There is, for instance, the case of the Group Areas Act. The Group Areas Act as such is a planning instrument. With the aid of that Act we decide where people are to live. We must either have a planning instrument by way of which this can be done, or we must allow it to have free rein. Hon. members on this side of the House and I are of the opinion that we must have this instrument, that we must use it. I am prepared to say—in fact, I have said it and there is nothing wrong with my saying it—that we must use this instrument correctly and fairly. We must use it correctly and fairly, for it can be one of the means by which sound relations in South Africa may be promoted, but it can also be a means or an instrument by which sound relations may be broken down. This is an attitude which I have brought home to my department and also to the Group Areas Board.

Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with overall planning. Now I come to what we are doing with a view to the future. If we want to face the future, we must have an inventory. One must know what one has in one’s hands and what one is engaged in doing. We are in the process of establishing guide plan committees in the major cities of South Africa and also in some of the smaller ones. On these guide plan committees we have brought together some of the most important Government departments. We are also bringing together on these committees the relevant province, town councils and the other local authorities of the areas in question. Then we draw up for such a city a plan, a guideline for the future, so that every person who wants to initiate development in that city may know what the basic policy or plan for that city is—not the details, but the trend. This is laid down in documents and in maps. I am referring now to the overall, general, directive, basic plan for that town or city. Every person who now wants to develop and has to develop, must adhere to that broad, basic plan, for I approve of that plan in the final instance and I release it. It is my agreement with the provinces, the town councils and with the Government departments that nobody shall deviate from that plan without my consent. I maintain that this is excellent progress. This is something which we have not had before. The detailed plans for the future can be drafted now, under that guide plan for the town or city in question.

I know that at present the local communities are very keen on having a say in matters. The citizenry want to enter into the spirit of these things which affect their actual lives. For quite a number of years now we have had the situation in Pretoria that there has been a Capital Planning Advisory Committee consisting of leading citizens. They had a certain advisory function in this regard. The intention is that I shall re-appoint this committee, whose term expires this year, and that I shall make it very clear to them that I am appointing them in order that they may carry out an advisory function in Pretoria. In an advisory capacity they will give attention to the ethical aspects of the development plans and to the, let us say, cultural-historic aspects of Pretoria as a capital city of our country.

The other day I was approached here in Cape Town by a committee. That committee consisted of persons who had been elected at a meeting of 800 people which had been held here in the city hall. Their request to me was whether Cape Town could not get such a type of committee as well. I myself am not unsympathetic to that idea, and I am considering the possibility of also appointing such a committee of leading citizens for Cape Town, i.e. to advise me and to have discussions with me when there are things which worry them. Once the guide plan for Cape Town has been completed, they will know what is in store for them in Cape Town. They will then be able to check and express their views on the detailed plans prepared in terms of the guide plan. If they do not have their way, they may come to me to discuss the matter. I think this will satisfy them.

I should very much like to win the confidence of the general public in all these planning actions, environment actions and the pollution actions with which we are dealing. I realize better than anybody else that if we do not win the confidence of the entire population, we are going to struggle. Here in Cape Town, of course, there are other problems that have also cropped up. The hon. member for South Coast referred to them only a moment ago. He spoke about the power station, and then there is the harbour as well. This is the kind of thing that has already happened. With regard to the erection of power stations in the future, I want to say that irrespective of who else has to give sanction for it, this department’s sanction should also be a requirement in any part of our country. But this power station will remain. The hon. member was quick to say that they were not in favour of its having to be moved immediately. This is the type of problem we have.

There is also the question of the roads. I should like to have heard what the hon. member had to say about these feeder roads of Cape Town. What is the position there? They are already in a process of construction. This is a matter for the city council and the province. I can only say that we shall try in future to place these matters on fixed basis, but sometimes I wonder whether our road philosophy in our cities in South Africa is correct; whether we should not review our basic approach to traffic in our urban areas. A few weeks ago I asked two young men, two juniors, in our regional office to make a survey along De Waal Drive. For two days running they stood there in the mornings, and do you know, Sir, what they found? Among the first 4 000 motor cars which drove past every morning, there were 3 000 in which there was only one person.

I told you that.

The Cape Town City Council made surveys on all the most important roads, and I think their figures, taken over a period of 14 days, in the mornings and in the evenings, reflect an average of 1,6 persons per vehicle. In other words, our roads are congested with traffic, which makes access to the city difficult. On this basis we build roads at a tremendous cost per motor car. If we calculate the cost per passenger, we shall see that it is absolutely uneconomic. We build new roads and then they get congested again after 10 or 15 years, after which we have to build again. Sir, I have obtained figures going back to 1924 and specifically to 1948, and these figures show that the total number of motor cars in South Africa doubles itself every 12 years; that is the average. In one period it doubled itself within 11 years; subsequent to that it doubled itself within nine years and within 13 years, respectively. Up to 1972 the total number of motor cars doubled itself, on an average, every 12 years. In other words, one will actually never be able to win this struggle; one must approach the matter from another angle. Incidentally, this is one of the things I want to take a look at during my visit abroad, and if I am spread I shall tell the House next year about all the things I will have seen there. Sir, these were just a few passing remarks in regard to Cape Town and in regard to our guide plans. We are indeed planning ahead.

But now we come to our country in its greater entirety. In that sphere, too, our department is busy. We have not yet blazed these things abroad, but we have already divided up the country into 38 regions, and we are planning every region intensively, so that we may know what we have there in the line of natural resources, minerals, water, power, people, cities and towns, and what we should plan for that specific area for the people who are living there now or who, we feel, ought to be living there; where they should live and where they should work and where they should relax. Once we have done this for each of these regions, we hope that, using these data as a basis, we shall be able to produce for South Africa an overall, major, national, physical development plan which we shall be able to submit to this House in due course. Sir, these are the things on which we are working; these are the things which will have to be done by us in future. We are effecting co-ordination in all spheres; there is hardly a sphere in which we are not effecting co-ordination. We are, in fact, undertaking certain physical planning under the Physical Planning Act and under the Group Areas Act; we are undertaking this urban planning, and we are giving attention to a national, physical development plan. These things are therefore receiving our attention.

Sir, I do not know whether I should reply to hon. members in great detail. I may as well start with the hon. member for South Coast with reference to the question of pollution and the environment.

†Sir, I think I can say to the hon. member for South Coast that we do not differ in our assessment of the situation. There is no doubt whatsoever that the world has moved in a direction where it is finding itself faced with very serious environmental dangers. There is no doubt about that. We read in the newspapers only last week, or this week that the U.S.A. is perhaps facing a petrol shortage. There is a real danger that in the next 10 to 15 years the world will run short of certain basic fuels. The world is using its natural resources at an alarming rate. Sir, only one-third of the people of the world enjoy a high standard of living. What about the remaining two-thirds? If you could succeed, which some people say is doubtful, in raising the standard of living of the two-thirds of under-privileged people of the world to the standard of living of the top one-third, then I tell you, Sir, that there would not be enough to go around in the world for everybody.

That is true.

I am not a prophet of doom but the world is facing very serious crises, and the one is the population problem. If the world does not find a way to meet this problem then I too may become a prophet of doom. But I think the world will in time find a way, and from what I read the world is finding a way to meet this problem to a certain extent. We in South Africa will also have to find an answer to this very important question. We will have to find that answer. As I have said, I think we do not disagree on our assessment of the position. We all know that the air is being polluted all over the world and that the oceans of the world have been polluted to a certain extent. I have something here written by the leader of the United States delegation to the Stockholm conference last year. In his address there is a paragraph in which he says that he was walking during the previous year on the beach of one of the Bahama Islands, on a lonely stretch of beach, watching the great waves rolling in, but, that all the plastics and indestructible material that were washed up at his feet really astounded him. The oceans have for some time been the dumping place of the ships of the world and the big cities adjoining the oceans of the world. We all know of the destruction of wild life throughout the world and we know of the depletion of our soil. There are many things we can name in this connection.

Now, how must we in South Africa tackle this? We can attend international conferences and we have done so. In that respect we will do our duty. That is the duty of the central authority, the Department of the Environment. But the next thing is how we must tackle this pollution problem in South Africa, which we have been made responsible for in South Africa. How must we preserve the environment and how must we deal with pollution wherever we find it? Let us take agriculture. Surely the misuse of our soil, the silt that is being carried down to the sea, is a method of degrading the environment. As I say, there is a lot of agreement between us but I say it is not for me to take this specific problem and say: I will now attend to all matters regarding the environment where agriculture is concerned. That is not my job. There is the Soil Conservation Act. There is the stock withdrawal scheme and various other measures pertaining to this problem. These are administered under various laws by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and to a certain extent by the Department of Water Affairs. I understood the hon. member to say that I must take over all those functions from the Department of Agriculture and take them into my hands.

No, sorry.

Well, if that is not the case the hon. member must be more specific.

I am short of time; that is my trouble.

The hon. member must be more specific because I say it is my duty to see that those matters are taken care of. That is my duty. I must make sure that there is no single aspect affecting the environment in South Africa which is not being properly taken care of.

You must put your hand on Hendrik Schoeman’s shoulder and ask him to co-operate with and assist you in your job, and also all the other Ministers.

That is right, but the scheme you have laid before me says the State must take everything into its own hands.

No, it does not say that.

The hon. member for South Coast mentioned the matter of sea pollution and he said that I must take care of sea pollution; I must take care of oil pollution at sea. But I cannot do that because the Department of Transport has been designated to take care of oil pollution at sea. Surely, this is a sensible arrangement. We have five patrol boats in the harbours patrolling our oceans. One of these days we shall have two of these big, powerful tugs—at present we are hiring them—to take care of any ships which need towing, etc. We have the equipment stores in our various harbours where the chemicals and equipment for spraying, etc., are kept. There we also have the equipment for pumping oil from one ship to another. The South African Railways and Harbours are so near to the scene of operations. I therefore think it is wise to say that they should do the job. Why must I and my department do the job? We sit in Pretoria. We do not have regional offices in the various harbours. We do not have port captains and other staff. Why must I take over the matter of combating oil pollution at sea?

You do not; you put your hand on Ben Schoeman’s shoulder and ask him to do it.

But that is exactly what I am doing. That is my policy. That is what I have been trying the whole morning to tell the Committee.

You must make it known to the public. Let them all know that you are doing it; do not keep it secret.

I have been telling it to this House; I am telling it now for the third time.

The public is not here.

In any case, if we do not differ on that, then we really do not differ.

I now come to education, which is very, very important. I have written to all the Administrators in South Africa and I have asked them to let me know what they are doing to include environmental matters in the curricula of their schools. They have all replied to me that they have given this matter attention and that they are giving it further attention in order to tell our children how precious the environment is and how precious each one of them is in preserving the environment.

We are getting wonderful co-operation on the part of the newspapers, for which we are thankful. All the newspapers without exception are giving us wonderful assistance in our endeavour to educate the people. When I drive along our streets or roads and I see people chucking bits of paper through the windows of their vehicles as far as they go, I really feel like taking out my revolver and shooting at their petrol tanks.

I now come to the matter of litter, litter along our roads, litter in our parks and picnic spots. The provinces have asked me to give them the powers to act and as hon. members know, we have amended the relevant Act during the course of this session. The provinces now have the power to act and they have promised me that they will pass uniform ordinances and that they will appoint inspectors who will act. Litter pollution is something which we can see. It is the most common form of degrading the environment that one can identify and it is also the easiest one to combat. The provinces are going to do that.

I think we can talk about the environment again next year, because I shall have the opportunity and the privilege to go overseas on 11th May. I shall be spending a week, or a week and two days in Britain to see what they are doing. The position is —I have read about it a great deal—that in Britain they have really succeeded in some of the projects they have undertaken. They have had a fair measure of success. They have instituted the first Department of the Environment in the whole world. Of course, they have a very strong department. If we had to do in South Africa what they have done, I shall have to take over the Department of Transport …

Hear, hear!

… the Department of Community Development …

Hear, hear!

… and all the provinces. I do not know whether the hon. member will say “hear, hear” now. The British have a Secretary and an Undersecretary of State for the Environment, as well as seven Ministers. Their Department is, the most powerful establishment in the British Isles.

They are tackling it very seriously.

They have achieved a lot of success, but I want to tell the hon. member this. I really enjoyed reading this publication of the British Department of the Environment, and I will give it to the hon. member for his weekend reading. Here he will see that they say that there are certain areas which they have left and which they must naturally leave to the various other departments to handle themselves.

Hear, hear!

That is the case. I shall also spend two to four days each in Holland, Belgium and Germany. That is all. I want to go and see how they have achieved their successes and by what means, for example the legal aspects, the administrative and financial steps they have taken, and how they have handled the question of the higher and lower authorities. I want to have a very thorough look into this matter, also with regard to transport, waste disposal in the big cities, which is a serious problem, etc. Then I shall come back and report to the Prime Minister. Perhaps next year, if we are all back here again, I shall tell the House what my findings have been. In any case, we intend, during the recess, after July, to take a very thorough look at our department in this regard, to decide whether we must come back to the House next year and ask for certain additional powers. I do not want to commit myself, but we are going into that matter very thoroughly. The outcome of the investigation will more or less form the charter on which my department and I intend operating in the future.

Before the hon. Minister sits down, could he say a word about the desecration of our caves?

Yes. Of course, I cannot voice my disapproval strongly enough about such practices. I can only say that I shall take the matter up with the Transvaal Provincial Administration, under which I think the matter falls. I shall deal with the matter as I have done with other matters raised here.

*I may perhaps be making too long a speech, but I think the day is long, too. What I actually wanted to do now, is to reply to the speeches made by the various members who took part in this debate. I want to start with the hon. members for Hillbrow, who is not here at the moment. He told me that he would not be able to be here, and I mention this just in passing. The hon. members for Albany, Kuruman and Moorreesburg also said that they would not be able to be here. There may also be other members who took part in the debate and apologized for their absence.

Now, I do not wish to conduct a major debate in the absence of the hon. member for Hillbrow, but I do want to comment on a specific remark made by the hon. member in regard to decentralization. The hon. member for South Coast said that they had unfortunately not had enough time today, and I do not wish to score debating points off anybody, but the hon. member for Hillbrow has actually been asking for it. He quoted figures here and said that section 3 of the Physical Planning Act had not had any significant effect. He said that over the past few years there had only been 62 000 Bantu who had not been approved. But tomorrow or the day after he will rise here again and attribute all the problems of the South African economy to section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. The one day he says that the measure has not had much of an effect, and the next day he says that it is the biggest culprit of all the culprits there have ever been. The hon. member said that our decentralization effort had not produced much and that it had not proved to be much of a success. But he said that they, too, were in favour of decentralization. That is what he said yesterday. It is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present at the moment. I listened to him speaking this year. Having done so, I looked up his Hansard again. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the poor growth rate which we supposedly had in our economy. He went on to say that he could give the reasons for it, and he laid certain charges at the door of the Government. He spoke about the failure on the part of the Government to train our labour force. Whenever he says this, the Opposition members usually say “hear, hear”. That was his first charge. A second charge mentioned by him was in connection with the Physical Planning Act and its inhibiting effect on growth in our most productive areas. He said that in Hansard No. 9 of 1973, col. 4264. The third charge made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in connection with the diversion of resources in the form of capital and labour and material to the border areas. Please note, he charged us with handling the economy badly and said this was the reason why it did not show any growth. Then he furnished the reasons I have just mentioned. Now I want to say something in regard to one of his charges, namely the one about the diversion of resources in the form of capital and labour and material to the border areas. If words have any meaning whatsoever, they mean that the Opposition is against decentralization to the border areas. I am speaking in all fairness and political sincerity. What else can they mean? This is not the first time this has been said. If I only had the time, I would find quite a number of quotations of this type.

Ideological reasons.

Yes, the question of ideological reasons is one which we have often heard about. The hon. member for Albany made a very good speech yesterday. But the hon. member for Albany said that I should please do a big thing. He referred to a “big plan”. He said I had to make a “big plan” in East London.

For economic reasons.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I have really heard strange things in my life. A “big plan” for economic reasons ! Now let us make a “big plan” for economic reasons. If one made a “big plan” for economic reasons in the direction of East London and if one made a “big plan” for ideological reasons in the direction of East London, I think one would still arrive at the same place. Now, he begged us to see to it that East London could provide its industrialists with cheaper water. Now I want to know from the Opposition how East London can provide its industrialists with cheaper water if that water is not subsidized. One cannot do it if one does not subsidize on a large scale the dam built by them so that the water may be supplied to the industrialists at cheaper tariffs. He spoke about “cheaper industrial sites”. As it is we are lending them the money, for purchasing the land and preparing the industrial area, at an interest rate of 2%. Now it has to be sold at cheaper tariffs as well. In other words, we have to subsidize it even further. Reference was made to “greater subsidized railway rates”. Surely this is inconsistent with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said one should not apply any artificial method whatsoever, for then one would be diverting people, material and labour to the decentralized areas. That member wants to go to East London in an economic manner. He wants to go to Berlin in an economic manner. He wants to go to Queenstown in an economic manner. He also wants to go to Rustenburg, Saldanha and Mamre in an economic manner. He may as well wait for pigs to learn to fly. That is simply not done in South Africa. It is done on a much larger scale in England, France and Italy. There the people are encouraged by way of financial incentive measures to go to their Newcastles and their Ladysmiths. Then there is the Tugela Basin, which that hon. member is so fond of mentioning. The Opposition should for a change come together in their caucus and state a sincere standpoint. I beg them to do this. Surely they cannot carry on this way. One should either use the State’s money to get the project off the ground, or one should not do so. Why do hon. members not tell me which areas are the ones where economic decentralization should take place? Is East London such an area, yes or no? Why does the hon. member for East London City keep absolutely quiet when these things are discussed? Why does he not rise and speak so that we may have clarity? The hon. Opposition have discovered the word “ideological” and now they keep on harping on it. Meanwhile this does not mean a thing. Let us take Kimberley as an example. Why are we trying to create a growth point in Kimberley? Surely it will not be possible for us to accommodate one of these days all of the three million Coloureds here in the Cape. We must try to create other growth points. Why are we trying to initiate something at Mamre? Once the industrial area of Mamre has been completed, it will become a growth point in terms of the new White Paper. [Interjection.] Well then, there is no objection to it. But according to that member this is supposedly being done for an ideological reason. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Benoni this question: If this is not an ideological reason, what is it then? Or are we now to accept that the United Party is willing to let everything go to the existing metropolitan areas? The cost of centralization is extensive. Many people are of the opinion that it does not entail any cost. If an industrialist settles on the Witwatersrand today, he has to buy his land. He also has to pay for electricity, water, raw materials and wages. He has certain direct costs. But these are not all. There is a host of costs which have to be paid, not by him but by the community. There is the question of the destruction of the environment. There is the question of the fantastically expensive access roads for our cities. It has been proved all over the world that up to a certain point it costs a certain amount to employ additional workers. From that point on the cost rises so rapidly that it becomes prohibitive. Then one has to decentralize. Are we now to wait until we reach the situation in which some of the cities of the world have landed? Are we to wait until we have reached that degree of over-concentration or should we see to it in good time that the activities are spread over our entire country? West Germany is a very prosperous country today. It does not have these tremendously large cities. The time when a country’s achievements in the world were calculated on the basis of the size of its cities, is past. Today this is a disadvantage more than anything else.

The hon. member for Albany spoke about East London as a wool harbour. I may tell him that I attended a dinner of the F.C.I. in East London more than two years ago. That evening I openly took up a standpoint in favour of the retention of East London as a wool harbour. I did so as the Minister of Planning and as a representative of the Border in this Parliament. Subsequent to that I did so on two more occasions. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Albany did so yesterday. I am often present in this House, but I am not here all the time. For that reason I should very much like to know whether the hon. members for King William’s Town, East London North and East London City have also said this here in this House. For two years the representatives of East London itself kept quiet while I had to fight for the retention of East London as a wool harbour. [Interjections.] This is the case; I know what I am talking about. If this is not the case, hon. members must bring me proof and then I shall be man enough to rise and say that I was wrong because I am not present in this House all the time.

You are still going to lose Queenstown.

Oh, you have already said on three occasions that I would lose Queenstown, but I shall no more lose it than that hon. member will retain Turffontein again.

I also wrote about East London to my colleague the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Everything has been put down in black and white. Now I want to say—and hon. members should kindly repeat this to the hon. member for Albany as well—that if the wool farmers of South Africa decide that they want to have a certain wool scheme, surely I cannot say, “I say you cannot have it.” They have been included under the Marketing Act, and if the wool farmers should state unanimously that they want a wool scheme which will only require one harbour, I do not know whether I would be able to do anything in that case. I hear that they have closed Cape Town as a wool harbour, but I shall not allow them, under the present set-up, to close East London as a wool harbour. That I will not allow. If they do reach a situation where they say that there should only be one wool harbour in South Africa, I shall say that we should in that case decide where that wool harbour is to be. In the end it may perhaps be decided that East London should be that wool harbour. In any case, I am just mentioning these things in passing.

I must make haste, but I still want to thank the hon. member for Smithfield for his words of appreciation and thanks to my department. I just want to tell him that my officials and I appreciate this gesture very much. I also want to tell him that my department and I have a great deal of appreciation for the co-operation we obtained from the Free State senators, members of the House of Assembly as well as municipalities in the Free State in respect of the settlement of Coloureds in the Free State. We are very pleased that we could solve the whole situation of Coloured inhabitation in the Free State in a manner which proved to be so satisfactory to everybody concerned, thanks to the co-operation which we obtained. As far as the Scientific Advisory Council is concerned, I just want to tell the hon. member that we now have a Scientific Advisory Council on a reduced scale. It used to be a large body, but its membership has now been reduced to 30. We have now obtained certain decisions through which we hope to concentrate all research spending in South Africa in a scientific research programme for South Africa. The scientific adviser will advise the Treasury on the annual spending of moneys. We hope that it will work effectively. I think we have adopted the right course.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg asked to be excused, but as far as his request is concerned, I just want to say that we are doing certain planning. Now I just want to say something for the record, because the hon. member would like to see this, and at the same time I shall also reply to the hon. member for Kuruman. We are now going to establish a guide plan committee for the Greater Saldanha Bay complex. This committee will operate under the chairmanship of an official of my department. The Department of Bantu Administration will be represented on it, not because we expect a large Bantu township there, but because we expect Bantu there during the construction stage. The bodies which I am going to mention now will also serve on the Sishen Guide Plan Committee—in other words, on both guide plan committees: A representative of my department will act as chairman, and then the following bodies will also be represented—the Departments of Bantu Administration, of Community Development, of Health, of Agricultural Credit, of Agricultural Technical Services and of Industries, the South African Railways, the Cape Provincial Administration, the Departmental of Local Government of the Cape Provincial Administration and their Roads Department, and Iscor. The differences are as follows: In the case of Saldanha, the Divisional Council of Malmesbury will be represented on it, plus the Department of Coloured Relations, the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Defence as well as the local authorities of Saldanha Bay, Vredenburg and Langebaan. Then I have decided to ask the Secretary for Planning to instruct the committee to coopt one person from that area as a member of the guide plan committee. According to my information they will ask that Mr. A. H. P. van Zyl serve on the committee. Then, with reference to what was said about the lagoon by the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens and Moorreesburg, I want to say that I shall also instruct the Secretary for Planning to coopt to the committee, at a certain stage of the planning, a person whom we are still going to find and whom we shall call an ecologist for the purposes of this discussion. He will then be able to see whether he is satisfied with that aspect of the development.

In respect of Sishen we shall, apart from the bodies I mentioned, also involve the Divisional Council of Kuruman. On that guide plan committee I shall have a person co-opted whom I shall designate after discussions with Mr. Hoon. That will be done more or less to satisfy the local element there, for this is actually an Iscor village and Iscor is already represented on the committee.

The hon. member also put other questions to me. He wanted to know whether the fishing industry would be represented on the committee. I have already said that the Department of Industries, which is responsible for fisheries, will be represented on the committee. In the case of the regional development associations, I think they will be represented indirectly by these persons who will be co-opted in their personal capacity.

As far as nature conservation is concerned, I have already referred to the ecologist who will be appointed. The Department of Water Affairs will also be represented.

The hon. member also referred to the development line from Cape Town to Saldanha. I want to tell the hon. member that we are constantly giving attention to it. We hold many discussions on the matter. We have the plan on paper. It is on maps, and it extends from Cape Town via Mamre. I just want to say in passing that we are very happy about the progress we are making at Mamre. The Cape Divisional Council is being very helpful to us there. They have already purchased the land, with a loan which we have granted them. They are engaged in planning the industrial area, with the aid of the I.D.C., and as soon as it has been laid out, we shall declare Mamre to be a growth point, and industrialists settling there will then be able to apply for decentralization benefits. Very soon we are also going to provide housing there for the Coloureds. We are also engaged in doing that.

I think I have in fact replied to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens already. I quite agree with him. He will probably know that I went to Langebaan approximately two years ago, when there was a great deal of talk about that scheme to which he referred. I did my best to stop it at the lagoon. I did to a certain extent succeed in doing so, but for the information of the Committee I just want to point out— there is no point in our mincing matters— that years ago certain people obtained a concession from the State for manufacturing salt there. I am not sure what that concession costs per year; it does not matter either, but it costs them quite a substantial amount per year and over the years they have paid that money every year. They do therefore have a legitimate concession, and I do not intend cancelling concessions and exposing the State to an action for damages. But I am nevertheless of the opinion that we shall eventually be able to solve and accommodate the matter satisfactorily. Sir, I have already replied to the hon. member for Kuruman.

†The hon. member for Port Natal suggested that there were undue delays in group area proclamations. He mentioned Grey Street and Newcastle, but apart from those two he did not mention other specific instances. With regard to the Grey Street area I can only say that as far as I am concerned, there was no undue delay. I do not know what happened during the previous 12 years. Sir, this was a new development in group area policy and it took time to finalize, but after it was finalized there was no real delay on my part. The delay arose because of a request by the Indian Council to include in the proclamation certain usages which had not been provided for. The question of hotels had to be thrashed out, firstly, with the Hotel Board and the Liquor Licensing Board and other people who came into the picture. When that matter was finalized, they came with a new request also to include clubs and cinemas. To finalize that matter also took about three or four months, but if it will give the hon. member any pleasure I can say to him that that proclamation is appearing in today’s Government Gazette.

Thank you very much. Three cheers!

The hon. member also raised the question of Newcastle. I personally took a lot of time and trouble about Newcastle. Certain proclamations have already been finalized, namely the new White group area and an additional Coloured group area. I am prepared to say here today that the section 19 areas, the one along Allen Street and the one along Kirkland Street, will remain, but I am very keen to have the area between Allen Street and Jordaanspruit, the low-lying area, retained as an open space as part of the town, and if I cannot get that area by any other means, I shall very seriously consider proclaiming that area a White group area to achieve that end—not for residential purposes.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can he declare it a White group area in terms of the Act, but designate it as an open space?

That is a matter that I will look into, but that is my intention. I have had discussions with the town council of Newcastle and they have assured me that in their town planning scheme they will make provision for this specific area to be zoned as a public open space, and I am still relying on that assurance. But apart from that, we also had a guide plan for Newcastle. Under that guide plan certain roads through the upper part of the town were shown, but now the province and the local council have come back to us for permission to re-route those through-roads slightly, and the re-routing of the through-roads will affect the proclamation of the White and Coloured group areas. Why finalize Newcastle now if you have to come back in three or four months’ time with a new proclamation? That is the reason why we are taking some time over Newcastle.

In regard to District Six, my answer to the hon. member is that that proclamation was passed some time in the 1960s and as far as I am concerned it is a fait accompli and I cannot do anything about it.

*Then there is the hon. member for Namaqualand, who once again made a very fine speech on Namaqualand and the needs and the bottlenecks in Namaqualand, such as transport, water and power. I may tell the hon. member that I am with him, my sympathies are with him, and I shall help him as far as I can. I give him this assurance. We must wait and see how the new copper mines develop and, who knows, in the light of that we could perhaps use our influence in respect of certain roads, which we, too, think should be built in Namaqualand. In any case, the power line is already being constructed by Escom. But I endorse what he said and the idea he expressed, namely that the area surrounding Springbok, which supports more than half of the population of Namaqualand, is indeed a growth point to which we must give attention.

To the hon. member for Johannesburg North I want to say that I have nothing to say about Lenasia. I did cudgel my brains to a certain extent, but I can honestly tell him that this is the first time that this matter has been raised with me. The Indian Council or the Minister of Indian Affairs did not discuss it with me in the past. If the hon. member for Johannesburg North would read his Hansard again, he would see that in the end he was virtually arguing against Lenasia as an Indian area. He did ask for an alternative area, too. I do not think any consideration is being given to doing something in respect of Lenasia.

I did not have any objection to Lenasia as such. I pleaded here for another group area in addition to Lenasia, closer to Johannesburg.

The hon. member made two points against Lenasia. The first was that he said it was too far. Well, if it is too far, that is that. The second was that those people had to wade through the water up to their waists before they could reach the bus stop. But I am just mentioning these things in passing. I take the hon. member’s word. As far as housing in all areas is concerned, I want to say that this is not my department’s job. But while I am referring to it, Sir, you will permit me just to say this. You know this year is the year of our Green Heritage, and this thought has been on my mind and I must express it. The other day I paid a visit to Caledon, where I personally wanted to inspect a group area problem. I stood there in the Coloured township. Sir, the land they have there is the same as the land used by the Whites for field cropping purposes, and once again the question occurred to me whether this year of our Green Heritage did not provide certain organizations, which are so keen to do something—the Rapportryers, the Rotarians and those who would like to do something for the country, or the town clerks or town councils that have some imagination and want to do something for their country and their fellowman—with the opportunity of planting trees all over the Coloured and Indian townships of South Africa. It is true that some of the plots are small; some of the houses are small, but this is a passing stage. However, is it not possible for us to beautify these township? I am impressed by the attractive gardens one does already find in these Coloured townships today, but would these townships not look so much better if they were also tree townships, and would their people not live more happily there, too?

I think I have now replied to all the questions except those of the hon. member for Wonderboom. The hon. member for Wonderboom asked me whether we could not have the future use of the Bon Accord area pointed out in the guide plan. I want to tell the hon. member that this is to my mind a fair request. I shall definitely keep it in mind. In fact, I accept that the guide plan will indeed include that area. I seem to recall that the chief planners were somewhat hesitant about what they had in mind for that area and that they actually asked us to indicate the future pattern of use in that area. The hon. member went on to make the plea that the State should buy the area. He said it was a wonderful asset. I agree with him that it is a wonderful asset if one can obtain a large piece of land close to a big city. I believe that is so much more of an asset if one can in addition get a dam on that piece of land, a dam which, if one has to build it today, will cost one a few million rand. This matter was discussed in responsible circles, and at one stage it seemed as though it had been finalized, but it seems to me as though the matter has to a certain extent been reopened recently. More than that I really cannot say. However, I can in fact say that the matter is receiving attention, but I cannot say whether anything will come of it, for although it is true that if one buys land close to a city today, one does obtain an exceptional asset, one must need that land; one cannot allow it to lie there for, say, 20 years, with the idea that future generations may perhaps be able to do something with it. If one had the necessary money, it would of course have been a good thing, but where does one get the money from?

I think I have now dealt with all the points mentioned here. I apologize to the Committee for having spoken for such a long time. I think the hon. member for South Coast is also satisfied with my replies to his questions.

Yes, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think I am speaking on behalf of this whole Committee when I thank the hon. the Minister for this very broad outline, which he gave us in the course of one hour and ten minutes, about the activities of his department. I think I can say that we are really impressed by the enthusiasm, the zeal and the perseverance with which the hon. the Minister handles his department. I want to link up with previous speakers by thanking him and the department for the great work that is being done. I read the latest report of this department with great interest. I am referring to the report for the period ending 30th June, 1972. We are all impressed by the work being done, and I shall come back to a few aspects at a later stage.

I also want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the fact that he has seen his way clear to including the environment under the activities of this department. The environment is something that has been bothering us for a very long time. Every day we see how our country is being abused, how it is being defaced, how it is being contaminated, how it is being poisoned, how it is being polluted and how it is being subjected to noise pollution, and these are matters that really bother us. Something that is very close to our hearts is that solutions should be found for this. It pleased me this morning when I saw that we also have a large measure of co-operation from the Opposition side in this connection. This matter is so important that I think it would be a fine day in South Africa if the question of environmental control could be lifted out of politics and we could speak here with one voice.

We want to wish the hon. the Minister every success on the occasion of the trip he is going to undertake. He will be going to see countries that have impressed us, to a large extent, with what they are doing for the preservation of the environment. One only needs to travel through countries like England and Wales to be impressed by everything that is being done to keep the environment beautiful, neat and decorative, this applies equally to the smallest and largest aspects. What impressed me, in particular, in those countries, is the uniformity one finds in their advertisements. In this respect one thinks not only of the heaps of rubbish that lie around here in our country, but one also thinks of the tremendously unsightly things that are done with electric lights that flicker on and off to advertise Coca Cola or whatever the case may be. This is unsightly. This is specifically an aspect that strikes one in overseas countries, like Holland and Belgium. We can learn a lot from those people and we hope that the hon. the Minister will bring some of their ideas back with him.

We also hope that the hon. the Minister will get the opportunity to go and have a look at what is happening in countries in the Far East. There is a small country like Taiwan whose surface area is about as big as a third of Natal, but there are 15 million people who have simply settled themselves there. Those people have to be controlled. I want to put forward an idea to you. What I saw there impressed me to such an extent that I preach about it from morning till night when I am speaking about environmental control. Those people began with their children. We must also dc the same here, so that they can learn that sense of beauty and neatness, thereby to preserve the environment. I shall never forget when I was at the Shimen dam as a tourist. It is one of the biggest dams, a tremendous tourist attraction. There were a lot of tourists. You know these people. One sees them everywhere one goes in the world, the people who walk round with long cigars and whom one can sometimes hear talking and carrying on miles away. There were also a lot of Chinese schoolchildren. Everywhere these people walked they simply threw things away.

Sir, those children were like small mongrels storming down on their prey, because every time a long cigar was thrown away, they stormed down on it, grabbed it, showed it to the person with a “hee-heehee” and threw it into a rubbish bin. I was so interested that for quite awhile I walked along behind the people just to see what would happen. Those people eventually became ashamed and stopped doing it. That is the example that must be set by our young people in this respect. Those are things that count. That is what makes people ashamed and makes them realize that they must preserve the beauty of nature. Here with us it also happens and in the same lobby I have seen someone light a cigarette and throw his match on the floor. Can we not start with ourselves and apply the principle here in our own midst? Let us, when such a thing happens, pick up that match and say to the person: “Look how you are polluting your own environment which you love.” That is how we must begin, and in this way we shall achieve success.

I also want to speak about my own area, and I want us to do something there very quickly.

In Pretoria?

If the hon. member does not know, my constituency is Langlaagte. I am not ashamed to say it. There is a reason why I live in Pretoria. My voters also know this. It is only stupid United Party people who want to make political capital out of such a small matter. I want something to be done quickly in my constituency to save that area for the people in the southern suburbs of Johannesburg. A start has been made on a stone quarry under the control of the Falcon Investments Company. It is an eyesore, a detestable thing. It causes great inconvenience to the inhabitants of that area. Something must be done about that. An application has been made for approval for another stone quarry there by the Tucker group of companies.

May I ask a question?

I cannot answer questions. I do not have the time. The hon. member may speak later. I want to ask that something should please be done to save this area.

Looking at the report, I want to thank the Minister and the department for also having appointed a steering committee that will draw up a plan for the whole Witwatersrand. My constituency has the biggest Bantu population in that area. The whole Soweto location falls in my constituency, as does Lenasia and the Coloured areas in the Klip River complex. In that area there are also quite a number of small farmers living. They are living in the Olifantsvlei complex. The people there have to live under very hazardous conditions as a result all of the sewerage works there are in the area. The conditions prevailing there simply make it impossible and intolerable for those people to live there. You can understand the atmosphere that prevails in such an area. Then there is, in addition, the whole Klip River valley from the big pump station at Midway right down to the bottom; that area cries out for planning. Today I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister and his department for us to take a brief look at that problem. If it has not already been fitted into the action that is being taken in terms of the Witwatersrand planning complex, I want to advocate that we should appoint an auxiliary committee for that specific area. Let us take a look at that for a change. This morning I want to take the liberty of extending a very friendly invitation to the hon. the Minister to go with me to have a look at this whole complex. Big development is in progress there; thousands of houses are being built for Coloureds. The fine Indian area, Lenasia, which we can all be proud of, also lies there. I, as a member of this Government, am proud of what we are doing in Lenasia, in spite of what other people say. There are always people who try to get poison out of anything, but I am prepared to go and show the world what we have done for the Indian population of Johannesburg at Lenasia. We are all proud of that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to link up with the previous speaker in his thanks to the hon. the Minister for a very clear explanation, because many of us were not quite sure in our minds about what the exact compass of the activities of the Department of Planning and the Environment would be. I think we are now clear about that and we are thankful for his clear explanation. I also want to associate myself with the previous speaker who expressed his thanks to the department. This department is not all that old yet; as we all know, it is only a few years old. If one thinks of where and how they have already been directing their activities, it surprises one to see how far they have already come.

I also want to congratulate the department on a brochure they have issued which deals with the “Drakensberg Catchment Reserve”. In that brochure a very clear explanation is given of the guide plan for the Drakensberg catchment area—it is actually the catchment area of the Tugela valley. The hon. the Minister furnished a very interesting piece of information in the sense that they co-operate with the provinces, councils, etc. This disappointed me slightly because I was of the opinion that the Department of Planning and the Environment should not let itself be led to any great extent by provinces and city councils, but that those bodies should only act in an advisory capacity and eventually be the executive authority of the Department of Planning and the Environment. In Natal, where I come from, they have already been engaged, since the ’fifties, in having large scientific works set up for the Tugela valley and the Tugela basin so that what has eventually developed is what one could call an industrial axis from Durban to Johannesburg. This is still in the making and it is receiving additions such as those at Newcastle and the extensions at Ladysmith and Escourt. I have no objection to that.

At Mooi River too.

Yes, it also passes Mooi River. It also passes Maritzburg and Hammersdale up to Durban. I have nothing against that development axis. The water, the power and the manpower are there, everything is there. But no thought has ever been given to the rest of Natal where the downflow does not run into the Tugela River, in spite of the fact that we asked the province as far back as the early ’sixties also to draw us up a guide plan for the area known as northern Natal which is linked to the south eastern Transvaal. There in northern Natal we have many rivers with an abundance of water. We concede that the Tugela is probably one of the big rivers in the country as far as the quantity of its downflow is concerned, but the other northern rivers, the Pongola, the Pivaan, the Mkuze, the White and Black Umfolozi and the Usutu in the south eastern Transvaal are all very perennial rivers and are fed from an area which, as far as the natural scenery is concerned, has been looked after very well. Mr. Martins and I flew over it once to determine what damage had been done. We saw four farms where there was so much damage that it could be seen from the air. We flew quite low. In the Pongola area the rainfall is high and there is still a tremendous amount of grassland.

The farmers in that area are progressive and they look after the soil, but that area has not yet been planned. I say it has not yet been planned, because when Richards Bay was designated as the harbour for the export of coal from the south eastern Transvaal and northern Natal, the Department of Planning had to jump in. I must say they drew up a master plan for Richards Bay in the shortest possible time. The statement I want to make, however, is that if Natal had accepted its responsibility there would then already have been a guide plan. But instead of that we find now, after the planning has already been done, after large amounts have been voted —R7 million also having been voted under this Vote for extensions to Richards Bay— that there is one large business undertaking whose land, on which its buildings stood, was given to the Natal administration in exchange for the sole right to trade in the Richards Bay area. I think that is scandalous. One must take a look at this kind of thing.

The appeal I want to make to the hon. the Minister and his department is that a guide plan should be drawn up for that area. I am not asking for a guide plan to overcome the problems that are being experienced there, because there are reasons for these problems. A while ago there was talk of economic and dogmatic reasons. I think it is for dogmatic reasons that no large planning and no growth points have yet been designated in northern Natal. If one looks at a map of this area, and one sees that the whole downflow of those rivers still virtually runs into the sea at this stage, one involuntarily thinks whether it would not be advisable to create a large complex for industrial development behind the Lebombo range of mountains, since those plains are still lying open and since planning has partly been done in respect of the settlement of Bantu and possible settlement of other farmers. Then that water could be used, on the one hand for industrial development and on the other hand for farming. Because so much water runs to the sea, it would be a good thing if the department could give attention to determining, in co-operation with the Department of Water Affairs, how many dams could be built cheaply higher up in those perennial streams. The dams can be built in a cheap area where the evaporation factor is small and where a great deal of clean water can be stored. This water can be stored for the area between the Lebombo and the red ridges; the area stretches from the Pongola settlement which is at the moment, I would almost say, the only place in the country that gets its water at a weir in the river and not from a dam. No water is stored for the whole Pongola project. With the aid of these dams water could then be stored higher up so that there could be security for these people and so that they would not have to fear droughts. Then the area from there, as the railway line runs, past Candover and Mkuze and down to Richards Bay, could be developed agriculturally. Water could then be supplied to that area from these catchment areas I have just mentioned, the Mkuze, White and Black Umfolozi and the Pongola Rivers, if these rivers were to be dammed up along their higher reaches. This is a frost-free area. Because it is frost free, it could become the pantry of the country.

I do not need to tell this House what the quality of the soil in that area is. This can be determined from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. There hon. members would hear that we have there some of the deepest alluvial soil available in the country. The misfortune, however, is that there is no water. I think that thought must be given to providing water to this area rather than making water available to the Makatini area, so that Whites may go and live there. This water should rather be made available to the area from Vryheid downwards. Those areas must obtain water so that food can be produced for the population. That whole area from Vryheid past Magudu, Candover, etc., up to Richards Bay is a frost-free area.

At present it is, to a large extent, merely a grazing area. However, here and there are also spots where sugar is produced. Except for the settlement at the top point and a lot of private farmers along the river, we find that at present it earns only exchange revenue from the growing of sugar. Previous speakers have expressed the fear that in the year 2000 there will not be enough food for our people, but I do not think we have to be worried about that. It will be possible to produce enough food in this area. Just like Formosa, this area, less than a quarter of Natal, will also be able to produce enough food to keep the whole of South Africa going far past the year 2000, without the need to import food. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to a charge levelled by the hon. member for Langlaagte, i.e. that nothing has been done in connection with the stone quarry in the southern portion of Johannesburg. He complained that the Johannesburg City Council is doing nothing about that. This matter has been discussed on several occasions at meetings of the ratepayers’ association. Then the Nationalist Party M.P.C., Mr. Barnard, and other persons come along and spread all kinds of stories in connection with this matter. If challenged across the floor of the provincial council to discuss that and to make constructive proposals, they refuse to do so. Mr. Jimmy Hall, M.P.C., did so and subsequently found that the Nationalist Party M.P.C. preferred to speak about Boer hatred instead of taking part in the debate about this problem and making suggestions. The hon. member for Langlaagte lives in Pretoria and does not know what is going on in his constituency.

You are talking nonsense.

The United Party has once again taken the lead, just as in the case of many other spheres and other occasions, in creating order out of confusion and once again indicating a course of action and laying down principles for the Protection of the Environment. The establishment of the United Party’s caucus group for the Protection of the Environment is an example of this. It has been seen how we succeeded in spurring the Government on to follow our example. This eventually led to the extension of the hon. the Minister of Planning’s responsibilities and powers to include the protection of the environment as well. I should like to express here my appreciation for the interest, guidance, perseverance and strength of the hon. member for South Coast who brought this into being in the interests of the whole of South Africa. Now he has again taken the lead in formulating principles for the protection of the environment. The first principle is an acknowledgement of the fact that the earth can be made uninhabitable to man by the pollution of the environment as a consequence of man’s activities. We on this side of the House feel that it is also time that the mad rush of development be called to a head, that we should act responsibly and do something to combat the pollution and the destruction of the environment. These problems can also make the earth uninhabitable to other living beings of God’s creation. They could irrevocably be destroyed and wiped out for ever. I am referring to anything, from the most insignificant algae in the sea to sea organisms, even penguins as a result of oil pollution, big mammals like the black rhinoceros and the already extinct Cape bluebuck and quagga. It could happen as a result of the destructive work of civilization through which the natural habitat of these animals is completely destroyed. The gobbling up and destruction of our open spaces in South Africa, which we are proud of, is something I really find frightening.

Prof. Willie van Niekerk recently told both caucus groups of the frightening world population explosion which would more than double in the next 30 years. He pointed out that 130 births take place in the world each minute. This is equal to the population of Port Elizabeth being added to the world population every day. South Africa doubles the population about every 23 to 24 years. Ecuador is regarded as the country with the greatest increase in the world, i.e. 3,4%. In South Africa the population increase per year is 2,1% for the Whites, 3,3% for the Coloureds and 3,7% for the Bantu. This is more than the population increase in Ecuador. The Coloured population in South Africa doubles every 20 years and the Bantu population every 19 years. This we must compare with a doubling every 30 years in the population increase for the world as a whole. Those are the problems we are faced with in South Africa. Just think of the tremendous effect that increase must have on making living space available, the question of industrial settlement and the growth rate. These are all aspects of this Minister’s responsibilities that are affected by the population increase. I should like to know what this Minister is going to do in connection with this big problem. It is a problem about which both sides of the House are equally concerned. We have had speeches from both sides of the House in that connection. We feel that it has become vitally necessary that something be done about that. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister of Planning’s policy and guidelines are in that connection. I should like to know what possibility there is of something in fact being done in that connection.

It is the State’s privilege to rule and make laws. At the same time, therefore, it has a duty and a responsibility to identify and make known all forms of pollution as set out in principle by the hon. member for South Coast. It also has the responsibility of limiting and removing the present sources of pollution and of preventing new sources from cropping up and developing further. An additional principle which the United Party has accepted, is that it is also the State’s responsibility to prevent the destruction of the environment. There are additional subsidiary facets involved which we have accepted as guidelines on this side of the House. We regard it as essential that one person, i.e. the Minister, should be responsible for all forms of pollution. We have no objection to his delegating powers to other departments, but we regard it as essential that one single Minister, one single person, be responsible for all aspects of pollution. He must have the overlapping power—and we should also like to see that he has the necessary powers—to carry out those responsibilities and duties. We regard it as essential that there should be the necessary education instruction of our youth to ensure that our children, and particularly the non-Whites, become aware of this big problem that affects us all. We find that there is a tremendous amount of pollution in some of our loveliest spots as a result of the conduct of people who are thick-skinned as far as this important problem is concerned. We regard it as absolutely essential that there should be the necessary research, and I want to congratulate the Minister on what has already been achieved in this particular sphere, as set out in these two reports of his. We appreciate what he has already achieved in that field. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not nearly enough as yet. We regard it as vitally necessary for this whole matter to be extended further. We regard it as absolutely necessary that all big projects should be compelled, as normal procedure, to submit an ecological report to Parliament which could then be discussed and studied by us and other outside bodies before such a project is brought into being. [Time expired.]

Sir, there is much in the speech made by the hon. member for Benoni with which I agree. Like him I should also like to put a brake on the frantic pace at which we, in this civilization of ours, are moving today, but I wonder how this could be reconciled with the growth rate of 10% or more for which hon. members opposite are so fond of pleading. Mr. Chairman, in a modern state, as South Africa may no doubt be described it is perhaps a pre-requisite today for statistical data to be obtained in many spheres and then made available, once obtained and properly processed, to those who are in charge of and have control over the various departments so that a policy and a programme of action may be drawn up on the basis of such statistical data. This is essential in all spheres. Just consider our economic life, for example. It is important for us to know how many employers and employees and unemployed we have, and what our imports and our exports are. Today there is not a single field in which we can act effectively without our having the figures which properly cover the scope of the field concerned and give us a clear picture of it. Sir, in the few minutes at my disposal I would like to refer to the agricultural census. As you know, Sir, our farmers are requested every year to furnish certain statistical details. A form is given out to all farmers by the South African Police which they then complete. That form is known among the farmers as the “pumpkin list”. That is a very unfortunate name. A totally unfavourable connotation attaches to that, a connotation which may perhaps be attributed to the fact that years ago, farmers were requested to furnish trifling details such as the number of pumpkins he harvested in a year. That form fell very much into disfavour among the farmers; in fact they only regarded it as a nuisance. I may just mention that this form is now drawn up in co-operation with the Department of Statistics, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as well as the South African Agricultural Union. The way in which this form is drawn up today has been greatly improved; the approach is most scientific and the present form can by no means be compared with the old “pumpkin list” we had to complete years ago, and which was to a certain extent virtually useless. But the point which I really want to deal with in my speech, is that when this data have been obtained and when it is at our disposal in a processed form, I doubt whether we really utilize it to the best effect. We are concerned here with matters of agriculture and I wonder whether this is made available to agriculture again, not only agriculture as a whole but to every individual farmer. I think that since we incur such a great deal of expenditure in that connection, we may just as well take the matter a little further so that every agricultural district and every farmer receives a summary of the data and can have it at his disposal. I am thinking of a few items of information which in my opinion we could put at the disposal of the district and the farmer. We could for example put at his disposal the number of farming units in every district. That is fairly simple. We could let them know what the size of the average unit in a district is. What is more important, we could give them the mortgage debt on every unit in the district. We could bring it nearer home and give the mortgage debt on every hectare in the district. At the same time we could tell them the miscellaneous debt of every farmer per hectare. In this way we could determine the burden of debt of a district with great precision under a few heads. When this has been determined and we have the picture of a certain district, and have put it at the disposal of the individual farmer, it should be a very simple matter for him to compare his own position with what is going on in that district. If he compares the debt per hectare in his district with his own he will know only too well whether he is heading in a safe direction or whether there is a red light burning for him or whether he should reconsider his planning or his position. But it would not only be helpful to the individual farmer in evaluating his position with the figures of the district as a whole, but it would also be of great value to the agricultural planners and the Department of Agriculture if we could point out the uneconomic units in this way. You know, Sir, there are various definitions of what an uneconomic unit is. We have the difficulty that sometimes one has a good farm with a poor farmer, or vice versa. But when we make available the figures for a certain farm over a number of years, these things are uniformly included and it is possible to determine with a very high degree of accuracy what comprises an economic unit in a certain district. We could also very easily extract the lowest 20% or 25% of units in a district and say that these represent the danger points. Today many of the co-operatives employ a financial expert or consultant, and if those particular units are pointed to as the ones on the danger list, then it is really so much easier for the person having the necessary knowledge, background and training, to say to a person: I think you are in a dangerous position and this is where you must make the necessary adjustments. Over such a period we would then be able to see quite well whether it is as a result of the drought that the man finds himself in that position or whether it is as a result of injudicous purchases or poor planning. I believe that if we bear these things in mind in the drafting of our so-called pumpkin list, the agricultural census form of today, and if we want to return eventually to the district and to the farmer with the questions we are putting, then, perhaps, we shall be able to draft a form for them which will give them greater satisfaction to complete because they will then know that everyone who takes the trouble to make a good job of it, will eventually derive a great deal of value out of it because this can indicate to them a direction and a course as far as their farming activities are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay will excuse me if I do not follow him in the thought that he has uttered in the interest of the farmer. I should like to have a good look at it and think about it and perhaps we can discuss it later on.

I have a point which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister which really deals with the interrelationship between his department and the Province of Natal and the Department of Agriculture to a certain extent. This is the question of the proclamation of “green belts” which has been done by the Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal between the cities of Durban and Pietermaritzburg and in the surroundings of Pietermaritzburg down the Umgeni River between Midmar Dam and Albert Falls and certain areas on the other side of Pietermaritzburg. Of course, in Natal we are blessed with a Town and Regional Planning Commission, because, as usual, we are always centuries ahead of the rest of South Africa. This, of course, again was a brain-child of the hon. member for South Coast when he was Administrator of Natal.

I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the implications of the proclamation of a “green belt” between various cities. It has been proclaimed at this moment between Durban and Pietermartizburg, but it might quite easily be necessary to proclaim the same sort of thing, for instance, between Cape Town and Saldanha Bay or in other areas of the country. The implications are that you are going to find it necessary physically to limit the size of cities in South Africa. By declaring a “green belt” you are laying down a line beyond which a city may not go and what you are, in effect, doing to save that city having reached that expanse but being in need of further population development, is that you start to redevelop back into the central areas by means of the things which we have been discussing, such as high-density living, cluster housing etc: The developments which make the efficiency of urban living much higher, which make things like mass transport much more capable of being run successfully, which make a much lower drain on the resources of cities for sewerage and telephone lines and all this kind of thing. The proclaiming of “green belt” areas has a very, very clear implication that you may develop just so far and after that there is going to be a physical limitation placed upon the size of the city around which “green belts” have been proclaimed.

I should like to have some expression of opinion from the hon. the Minister whether the thinking of the Department of Planning is going in this direction that you can limit the size of cities, that you can say to them: Thus far and no further; you may develop to a certain point and beyond that all industrial development which leads to the higher populations is going to be funnelled off and channelled off to other areas. Everybody who flies over the city of Durban, for instance, will see what an incredibly difficult city Durban is to develop; with the topography of Durban it really has problems which no other city that I know of in South Africa has when it comes to the development of areas which has now been reached in the outside areas.

One of the further problems which arises having proclaimed an area between two large cities as a “green belt” is the following. Let me say that the Town and Regional Planning Commission has evolved a phrase which I have not seen before which interests me very much indeed. When you get a small local authority area which is functioning under a health committee or something of that kind, they have proclaimed the idea of an “urban fence”. Within that area of the “green belt” the small, local community may not develop outside of an area which is defined as an “urban fence”. The purchase of ground for the subdivision and provision of housing is a perfectly normal, legitimate activity in South Africa today and there are many people in many areas who purchase ground but they let it simply lie there in the hope that one day around the smaller communities they will be able to get themselves a capital profit on being able to develop that ground. You now have a planning authority which says there will be an “urban fence” established beyond which development will not be allowed to take place. The thought arises in my mind whether there is not some …

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I was dealing with the question of the declaration of green belts between major cities in South Africa. I had reached the point where I wanted to pose the following question to the hon. the Minister. Where a person has bought ground quite legitimately in terms of our present law, with a view to subdivision in an area where he feels subdivision is likely to take place, for instance around some of the smaller local authorities between the major cities, areas which are now going to be covered by the green belt, and an authority, whether it be the Department of Planning or the Town and Regional Planning Commission, declares an urban fence around such a small local authority, will the person so affected, the person whose property is the next one outside the urban fence, have any kind of claim for compensation against either the department or the province or any authority? I ask this because what you are doing now is to come between a man and a legitimate commercial activity. You are by imposing a zoning or a restriction or a regulation on him, saying that he may not use his ground for the purpose of urban subdivision. The minute you do that, it then falls within the purview of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. When that happens the land may not be subdivided for any purpose at all, because in terms of the Minister of Agriculture’s recent Act, that land becomes agricultural ground. I think a great deal of sorting out in this regard is going to be necessary because around many of the smaller local authority areas there are smallholdings which have developed in the course of time. I have had the experience in my own constituency of trying to get smallholdings subdivided. But because they are outside that local authority area, the Minister of Agriculture in terms of his Act has adamantly refused to allow any subdivision to take place in those areas. I think this is a matter to which the hon. the Minister is going to have to give very serious attention. Action is being taken in Natal; my own constituency is affected. It has been projected that the whole area between the Midmar Dam and the Albert Falls Dam should be declared a green belt. This belt will come down into Pietermaritzburg and around the whole Sweet Waters area. This will have the necessary effect of limiting the size of those cities.

The points I wish to raise, if I may reiterate them, are firstly that if you limit the size of a city, the department is taking upon itself something which will necessitate the placing of industries in other areas. You will then positively have to discourage the growth of areas such as Pietermaritzburg and Durban, and Pietermaritzburg has already, with the withdrawal of border area facilities, been affected in that way. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is now the intention of the department or some agency such as the Town and Regional Planning Commission to decide at a certain stage, whether an urban area, a city, has reached a stage of optimum growth. Will such an agency then be able to declare that from that time forward there will be no further outward expansion, so that any further industrial activity will have to be directed away from that area, and so that any further growth in population will have to come about by means of higher density housing, etc. within the limits of an urban authority? The second point relates to the urban fence. As I have said, a person’s ground may be affected, although he has bought it legitimately for a commercial purpose, with a view to subdivision. If an urban fence is drawn, will the person immediately outside that fence have any kind of claim to compensation against the department or against the provincial agency concerned?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River will perhaps not take it amiss of me if I do not reply to him. I think this is the third time that I have had to speak just after the hon. member for Mooi River in the discussion of this Vote. For the third time I want to point out to him that it is of no avail for Natal to become excited about the regional planning committee they have there. I have great appreciation for the work done there by Mr. Thorington-Smith, among others, but I want to point out that Natal is the only province in South Africa which, ever since 1910, has been entitled to provide for the maintenance of such a planning committee in its provincial budget. Now the question has occurred to me a number of times: What has Natal done since 1910? Only now, since the Department of Planning took matters in hand, has something started to happen in Natal. I do not know what they have done with the money in that province. I do not know what has happened to the 23 doctorates obtained in that period in connection with planning and development in Natal. Only since the Department of Planning took over, have things begun to go well. I think next year the hon. member will remember not to mention that matter again.

Sir, in the first place I should like to say to the hon. the Minister and his department that we in the Western Transvaal are very grateful when we get something, because normally we get back no more than the seed we have sown. It is for that reason that we are very grateful that we have again budgeted for a reasonable amount for a border industrial area such as Delareyville this year. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to increase this amount by at least five times as much next year, otherwise we shall not be able to manage at Delareyville.

More seriously, Sir, I should very much like to express my thanks towards the Minister and his department. In particular I want to mention those gentlemen dealing with the division of the Transvaal into regional development areas. We had the privilege of having an important meeting at Pietersburg on 22nd March, under the chairmanship of the deputy chairman of the Planning Advisory Council, Mr. Pretorius. Mr. Visagie and Mr. Reyneke were also there, and these people did a fine job of work, when one has regard to the fact that the whole country has to be dealt with in this way, and when one has regard to the fact that of the 38 regions, they have already planned the 25th region. They have therefore, made very good progress. While I am talking about that, I want to say that we as regional development associations are particularly happy with the arrangement which was made to have Mr. Reyneke of the department as a definite liaison officer now between the 52 regional development associations in South Africa and the Department of Planning. This is more important when one has regard to the fact that when we plan in South Africa, we do not only plan with regard to what we are going to do with the raw materials in South Africa, but that we must also plan in such a way that the people of South Africa plan along with us. Only when we have the people of South Africa on our side with regard to that planning and the conservation of the environment, are we really able to make progress. The good progress achieved on a high level, is really praiseworthy. As we are now moving down, and life can really be given to our regional development associations, and since the people of each area which is being planned, co-operate in the planning of that region, I am convinced that we shall be able to obtain the co-operation of these people. I think we shall have not only their co-operation, but also real attempts on their part to do their bit.

This whole question of the extension of the Department of Planning is the very thing which I want to discuss. I refer to the way in which planning is being integrated with the man on the street, or, to call him something else, the man in the country. It is true that the guide-plan committees represent various bodies and persons. But when a region has been demarcated for development, there are certain central points in that area. I know that the planning is done in such a way that there must more or less be a main town, something of a development axis in that particular area. Now it is essential, if this is so —and it ought to be so—that in that region the interests of certain towns or certain communities should not be put before the interests of other people. Therefore it is good that regional development associations are now to determine their own boundaries in such a way that this will coincide with this idea of regional planning of the Department of Planning. Because this is so and because we know that an increasing number of planners have been undergoing training at our universities in South Africa in the past few years, and also because our Department of Planning is possibly not the largest department, we can avail ourselves of this opportunity—particularly since a uniform constitutional framework is to be given to regional development associations in South Africa, and these people will function on a reasonably uniform basis—to make use of these associations as a quasi-extension of the Department of Planning, to bring the ideas of these associations to the people of the area and the ideas of the people in the area to the Department of Planning. I should like to hold out this prospect, that at some stage in the future we shall be able to progress so far that we shall help these associations not only financially, but that it will also be possible for each association in the region concerned which has been demarcated, to get a planner and that the planning in that region will be co-ordinated by that planner under the Department of Planning. We must remember that there are bigger urban complexes and cities as such which are in a position to appoint their own planner. But a large number of smaller rural areas have neither the finances, nor the means to appoint a planner, one who could really be of value to them. A co-ordinated attempt will therefore have to be made to appoint such planners. If the situation arises where we can plan an interlocking map of South Africa in this way, it would benefit the country to a fantastic extent.

We want to congratulate the department on the steps they have already taken so far. The ideal is that each region will be planned, each with its own planner and with the co-operation of the inhabitants of that region. After all is said and done, it is those people themselves who will be affected by the environment in which they live. If we can build up the pyramid from below and continue to progress in regard to the co-ordination of the Department of Planning, we in South Africa can really have planning of the highest quality. In any event, I do not at this stage call into question the ability of the department to effect such planning.

In the same breath I want to put it to the Minister that the consolidation of Bophuthatswana is now reaching the final stage. When it has been finalized, it will be absolutely important in the Western and North-Western Transvaal to investigate immediately the tendency of development, how those districts may develop. We must know, so that when the borders of Bophuthatswana have been drawn, and the labour force has been concentrated in the areas concerned, we shall have a heartland in the Western Transvaal which we shall have to see to. Then we shall have to take due note of the tendencies and indications and plan accordingly. Otherwise we in the Western Transvaal, and also the Northern Cape to a certain extent, will face the danger that the drawing power of the Rand, and border areas situated nearby, in respect of Tswana labour will result in an absolute drainage of labour from the areas in the North-Western Transvaal and the Northern Cape. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Christiana will excuse me if I do not reply to him except to say —I should like to emphasize this—that Natal is the only province in the Republic of South Africa which has a regional planning commission. This regional planning commission is the brain-child of the hon. member for South Coast. I also want to add that Natal is the only province which has been planned in its entirety in industrial areas, farming areas, etc.

That is nonsense.

It is very interesting that up to the time of the publication of the economic development programme for the period 1972-’77, the Government maintained persistently that South Africa could not grow at a faster rate than 5,5% per annum. A higher growth rate, we were told, would disturb our traditional South African way of life. It would promote integration. The economy would become overheated. We on this side of the House have always pleaded for higher growth and have pointed out time after time that it is a fatal mistake to restrict growth because of the White manpower shortage prevailing in South Africa. We have pointed out, furthermore, that the more economic utilization of trained non-White labour is necessary for effecting a higher growth rate. The revised economic gramme for the period which I have mentioned, provides for a growth rate of 5,75% per annum up to 1977, in other words, 0,25% higher than the previous target. If hon. members belittle the 0,25% increase in the growth rate, then I should like to point out that by the year 1977 the ¼% increase in the growth rate will mean R270 million in extra revenue for the country per annum. This shows us how easy it is to play with figures and how the growth rate target can be manipulated. The reason why it is possible now to increase the target, is, of course, to be found in paragraph 493 of this economic programme. I should like to read from the English version:

That is precisely what the United Party has been saying in this House over the past six or seven years. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having adopted United Party policy.

If the policy laid down in the Budget is implemented, namely the pre-service and in-service training of Bantu in White areas, and if we strive for a continually growing growth rate, that training has to be accelerated and a steady ripple-effect has to occur. Then we shall achieve the growth rate which the United Party has been asking for many years, which will not be 5.75%—which is still a relatively low growth rate—but will rise to those heights which will enable South Africa to become one of the fastest growing industrial countries in the world.

†Earlier this session I asked the hon. the Minister what stage had been reached in the planning of, firstly, the P.E./Uitenhage complex, secondly, the coastal area from Port Elizabeth to the Sundays River mouth and, thirdly, the area between the Swartkops and Coega Rivers. The hon. the Minister replied that the draft guide plan had been completed and that it would duly be considered by the central guide plan committee. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the central committee has in fact considered and agreed to this guide plan. Then I would like to ask him a series of questions which have been put to me by a number of people who are living in the area which I am now discussing. The first one is: Are individuals or associations of that area entitled to submit representations to such area drafting committees and if so, are they also entitled to appear in person before such committees or are they limited to submitting their representations in writing? If persons are entitled to appear in person, are they notified in any manner that they are entitled to appear before such committees? The trouble is that there is a great deal of uncertainty and dissatisfaction in areas such as Greenbushes, an area which has been frozen due to the planning not being finalized, in areas such as that between Coega and the Swartkops River and between the Port Elizabeth boundary and the mouth of the Sundays River. I was approached by persons who own property in the Greenbushes area and who are either anxious to dispose of their property or wish to develop them, but due to the uncertainty, the fact that the plan has not been finalized, they are unable to dispose of their property or to develop it. The farmers in the Coega area have made various inquiries about the possibility of Native townships developing towards them but their inquiries have always resulted in negative replies and hence their dissatisfaction. The people living along the coast from the boundaries of Port Elizabeth to the Sundays River mouth have made inquiries about the allocation of beaches to the various race groups. Again this was done in vain; they have never received a firm answer.

The projected St. Croix scheme, which also falls in this area, with the anticipated industrial development that will flow from it, poses, I think, two serious problems in regard to the planning of this area. Firstly, when this scheme is proceeded with, the planning of that area will naturally be greatly affected and will have to be amended. If the St. Croix scheme generates industrial activity in that area, the demand for labour would be greatly stimulated and, if the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex remains a Coloured labour preference area with the stipulation that a 2% unemployment amongst the Coloureds would be taken as full employment, such development could be retarded. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment is perhaps in a very exceptional position. Just before his departure for overseas, a chorus of thanks was heard here today, not only from the Government benches, but also from the Opposition benches. Even the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central could not help addressing a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister, even though this was on the grounds of a false supposition, namely that the Government had adopted a growth rate which was also the policy of the United Party. I just want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that, as was the case with most of the creative ideas which came into being in this country in the decades gone by, the economic development program was the brainchild of the Nationalist Government. It was while the late Mr. Eric Louw was Minister of Economic Affairs that this idea of drafting an economic development program for South Africa, first came to the fore. With typical thoroughness the National Party ensured that it could always realize the objectives it set for itself in this connection over the years. I believe, too, that in spite of the fact that at this stage we have a relatively low real growth rate, we shall in the course of this decade also be able to achieve the growth rate of 5,75%. May I, for that reason, join other hon. members in conveying a word of congratulation to the hon. the Minister today.

I want to refer to paragraph 14.4 on page 20 of the latest annual report of the Department of Statistics. There we read that the task of processing and coding almost 22 million personal records, a job which would have been completed at the end of June, 1972 in the normal course of events, was completed, through proper planning and the motivation of the staff, nine months earlier, i.e. at the end of September, 1971. According to that report it had been possible to increase production by 144% in one single month. I think this is a glowing testimonial for the work of the Department of Statistics. Although the work of this department is not often discussed in this House, possibly because it is one of our smaller departments, I think every member in this House makes use from time to time of the fruits of the labour of this department. I say this because virtually no planning would have been possible in this country and virtually no intelligent speech could have been made in this House were it not for the essential figures made available by the Department of Statistics. Therefore I want to associate myself with other hon. members by also conveying my congratulations to this department for the exceptional job of work it has done in the past few years. While its total budget at the present time is only about R3¾ million per annum—this is only about one-thousandth of the total Budget of the Republic for this year—I think not one of us would be sorry to see a significant increase in the amount voted for the activities of this department in the years ahead. When one considers the tasks which lie ahead for South Africa and the problems we face, the work of the Department of Statistics will become all-important. Here I have in mind the question of labour productivity in particular. If we in South Africa want to raise the standard of living of all our non-White groups and want to pay them higher wages in that process, we shall have to take their productivity into account. I should like to see this department making it one of its major take for the future to undertake a proper survey of labour productivity for the various industries in South Africa. Its second major task for the future ought to be not only the collection of data as soon as possible, but also the making available of such data in a processed form to departments and other institutions in South Africa. The achievement of these two objectives is all-important to the proper planning and administration of our country, and if the amount of R3¾ million were to be doubled, I do not think there would be one single hon. member on either side of this House who would begrudge the department that.

Today I really want to talk about the region where I live, namely the Boland. We waited a long time to enter the second phase of the development of the Boland. For the past 320 years the Cape has gradually grown into a reasonably important industrial region in South Africa. But the year 1973 has really brought with it the rebirth of the Western Cape, with the announcement by the Government that the Sishen/Saldanha scheme would proceed. Through this single decision new and attractive possibilities for growth have now been opened in the Western Cape and I believe that this department, for the very reason of the possibilities which are arising for White and Brown in the Boland and in the Western Cape, will realize that a great task awaits them. In 1960 the total buying power of the Coloured in South Africa was R201 million. In the year 1970 it was R519 million, an increase of 150% over a period of 10 years. If one applies simple arithmetic and proceeds from the premise that this will be the rate at which the income of the Coloured community will increase for the next three decades, one finds, allowing a 150% increase for every period of 10 years, that the purchasing power of the Coloured will total R8 125 million at the end of this century, which is 27 years from now. If one also bears in mind the fact that the total buying power of the Whites in South Africa was R8 645 million in 1970, and if one compares this to this projected figure of the buying power of the Coloureds in 27 years time—the estimated amount of R8 125 million—and if one makes further allowance for the fact that higher productivity and other imponderable factors may also have an influence on that, one realizes that it is even possible that one may reach a much higher figure than that mentioned here, for example R8 500 million, as the buying power of the Coloured at the end of the century. That would be more or less equivalent to the buying power of the Whites in South Africa in 1970. If one also bears in mind the fact that almost 90% of the Coloureds—I think it is approximately 87,3%—live in the Cape and that this will probably be their traditional home in the future, and if one also bears in mind the urbanization process and the drawing power which industries will have here in the Boland in the future, then one must accept that the greater part of the buying power of the Coloured will be accommodated in the future in what we could perhaps call the CTSW area; we must accept that just as we have had the greatest buying power in the PWV area in the Southern Transvaal up to now, we shall in future have the greatest concentration of the buying power of the Coloured in South Africa in the Cape Town/Saldanha/ Worcester area—the future CTSW area. Sir, with that as a basis one believes that tremendous industrial development will have to take place here to make provision not only for the needs of the Whites, but also for this increased buying power of the Coloureds. For that reason I think this department should henceforth see its task in the Western Cape not only in terms of the drafting of a good guide plan for Saldanha as a growth point for, say, 80 000 to 1 million people, but also in terms of making provision for the far larger numbers which will have to be accommodated here in the Western Cape and particularly in the Boland. Sir, for that reason I want to plead here today that the Department of Planning should, as a continuous task, but also as a fairly urgent objective, set itself the task of establishing a guide plan for the Boland as the industrial basis of the Western Cape. One of the most prominent businessmen and economists in this country calculated, as he said in a speech he made two years ago at Saldanha, that whereas the total production of the industrial sector in the Boland was R180 million in 1960, this production would have to increase to approximately R1 700 million before the end of this century, in other words, an increase of almost 1 000% over a period of approximately 40 years. Sir, it will be possible for this to come about only if attention is given to the education and training of the Colourds and if proper provision is made for places where these people will have to settle. We must also bear in mind the fact that while the rest of South Africa is keeping an eye on where the boundaries will be drawn between the Bantu states of the future and White South Africa, we here in the Western Cape are keeping an eye on where the boundaries will be drawn between settlement areas of the Coloureds in contradistinction to those of the Whites in the Boland and in the Western Cape [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I want to return to a matter the hon. the Minister raised here this morning, and that is East London as a wool export port. I offer no apologies for raising this matter again here this afternoon. This morning the hon. the Minister quite rightly informed us that this problem had been under discussion for more than two years. The Minister said it had even been discussed in this House. Well, I accept the Minister’s word, but I paged through Hansard and I must say in all honesty, that I am not at all satisfied that we have adequately discussed this matter here. I doubt whether we have ever raised the matter in this House [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says “No”. I agree. We have, in fact, raised it repeatedly outside this House for as long a period as two years.

†I want to go back to two years ago and quote from two newspaper reports, one from the local East London newspaper of the 25th May, 1971, which said—

Then there is the Eastern Province Herald which said the following—

So you see, Sir, for a long time now we on this side of the House have been pleading to retain East London as a wool export port but for far too long now the rumour has been going around the country that East London as a wool port will eventually disappear. I accept that in this report, “the Report and Recommendations on Wool Marketing in South Africa”, it was recommended by the Wool Board that eventually we should only end up with one wool port in South Africa. But since this report was tabled on the 25th May, 1971, we have had further reports, smaller pamphlets, issued by the Wool Board and we see in one of the latest issues, “You and the Wool Scheme”, that they evade the issue of wool ports. In fact, in this whole pamphlet only once do they mention shipping at all and then only in passing.

That has nothing to do with the scheme.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. I have always said, and I have said so for two years, that the wool farmer should divorce his wool scheme, which is an excellent scheme, from the harbours. The one has nothing to do with the other and as time marches on we are realizing this and appreciating it more and more. This brings me to my point, and I am glad that I have the support of the hon. member there, who should know, that particularly relating to East London industrialists are, because of these rumours, very hesitant to bring industries to East London. Naturally this speaks for itself. They say that one of our main industries might disappear, so why try to induce them to bring other industries there. They are afraid; they are hesitant. Only a few years ago Dr. Rautenbach kindly opened the large Berlin industrial complex, and a very happy occasion that was. I do not want to deal with that today but up to now virtually nothing has taken place in regard to the development of the area industrially. Indeed, there are only two minor industries which we hope will come there in the near future. The Government’s plan for border industries leaves us in doubt about East London. I believe that the Government, when it comes to border industries in the East London area, is dragging its feet. To show the hon. the Minister how seriously we view retaining East London as a wool port, on the 3rd April this year, I attended a very well-attended meeting of the leaders of five or six major bodies in East London. I attended this meeting with delegates of the city council, the divisional council, representatives of the wool industry (die wolmakelaars), the East London Chamber of Commerce, the Border Chamber of Industries and die Sakekamer van Oos-London. We met in order to receive a five-man delegation from Belgium. These Belgians came there to discuss with us the possibilities of East London continuing the exportation of wool to their harbour in Belgium, Zeebrugge. They are prepared, and so are we in East London and all these bodies I have mentioned here, to support the Belgians in exporting all the wool which Zeebrugge could distribute to West European industrial centres, and this is the pamphlet they gave us at this very important meeting. As I say, it was a most successful meeting and the main subject under discussion was the export of wool from East London to Europe. It is not necessary for me to tell you that East London is the largest industrial wool export in Southern Africa. East London has the largest floor space of any wool port in South Africa, a floor space of 1 750 000 square feet, and we are capable of handling 555 000 bales of wool if need be. This is in fact more than any other wool port can handle today.

Let me give you the latest figures.

I have all the figures here from the Wool Board’s report—I get them all from it. The next port on the list can handle 515 000 bales. This port is second to East London. When it comes to labour, we have in East London more people employed in the wool industry than in any other port in South Africa. We have 1 140 people working in the wool industry in East London and the total number of people handling wool in the whole of the Republic is 2 608. East London therefore has almost half that number. We have employment for our non-Whites right on our doorstep. East London harbour today, as we know, and as the hon. the Minister of Transport knows is only working at 60% capacity.

I must mention that last year we passed the Marketing Amendment Bill unanimously in this House. It was supported by both side of this House. This Bill dealt with wool and it introduced the new wool scheme which, a I have already said, is a brilliant scheme and is working very, very well indeed. In this Bill there was no mention of a wool port at all. I do not know of a more suitable site anywhere else where we can develop the wool industry on a better economic basis than we can in the Eastern Cape, and more particularly in East London. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for East London North made representations which were of a more local nature, he will forgive me if I do not follow up on what he said. In the short time at my disposal I should like to emphasize an aspect which is really so obvious that it very seldom receives attention, but which nevertheless has a fundamental effect on, and remains largely responsible for, the success or otherwise of any planning endeavour or project. I am referring to the human element. Take something like physical planning for example. Here I want to quote for the sake of interest from the minutes of the First National Conference on Planning, held on 21st and 22nd May, 1909, in Washington—

That was in 1909. In 1967, at the fiftieth conference of the same American Planning Institute which, as it happened, was also held in Washington, the chairman reported, inter alia, as follows—

In spite of intensive planning over half a century, the Americans have as yet not been able to build the ideal and effective city. The reason for this is obvious. It is because we are dealing with human beings. Even though a variety of aspects are taken into account in the planning process, even though all kinds of disciplines are involved, one still finds that the human being on whose behalf you are planning, human beings with all their freedoms and fluctuating requirements, desires and preferences are constantly creating changing conditions which can sometimes upset one’s best plans. Perhaps this is better illustrated in the case of economic planning, which is one of the important functions of this department. Now I do not want to be guilty of over-simplification, but I do think I can say that the successful implementation of the EDP, for example, which was drawn up after exhaustive economic investigations, analyses and projections, is today intimately bound up with the combating of the problem of inflation, the success of which in its turn, although not exclusively, is nevertheless to a very large extent dependent on increased productivity. Now, as is frequently done, it is easy for us to talk about inflation; but it is not so easy to break the spiral, precisely because one is dealing with human beings. In fact it is not merely a purely economic problem, but as much a psychological one. Similarly it is very easy to wax eloquent about labour, wages, the training of labourers, and productivity; but it is not so easy to motivate the labourer to greater industry. What makes this problem all the more difficult is the very fact that we are dealing with human beings, with a generation which grew up in a period of unparalleled economic welfare and prosperity, with the result that our people are concentrating more and more on greater benefits and luxury, and less on responsibility. Another result of this is that control measures and appeals for harder work are simply regarded as factors which merely irritate and make inroads on the liberty of the individual. It is attitudes like these which influence the successful implementation of something like the economic development programme, and which determine it to a large extent.

This department has been entrusted with another very important function, i.e. the conservation of the environment, which comprises the abuse, defacement, contamination and poisoning of the environment —all of which are things caused by human beings in the course of their economic activities. Once again, in other words, we are dealing primarily with human beings, with their attitudes and preferences. It is generally known that there is an intimate interaction between civilization and environment. On the one hand there is man who wants to satisfy his needs, and to be able to do this, he converts the natural environment into a cultural landscape upon which he can build his civilization. On the other hand, nature of course offers resistance, so that a situation of action and reaction arises which is more or less a continuing process. We need only look back over the past 60 to 70 years to see clearly what visible effect our pattern of civilization has had on our soil. It is also clear that the phenomenon of soil deterioration is a definite way in which the environment reacts and exerts pressure on our pattern of civilization to eliminate undesirable features. Therefore it is obviously in the interests of our survival, and we are urgently called upon, to restore the balance between the natural environment and the economic activities of man, and also between the number of people and the ability of the soil to carry them. We shall have to do so if we want this soil of ours to bear us for all time.

We have made great progress, particularly in the sense that planning is no longer merely following in the footsteps of development, but that development is being steered in positive directions. But it is also clear and I am pleased the hon. the Minister mentioned it, that planning without human development, without social development, does not always produce the best results. For the successful implementation of plans it is necessary for one to take one’s people along with you, and that the people for and on behalf of whom one is planning should we made conversant and remain conversant with both one’s planning strategy and the objectives one is aiming at. To conclude, I want to convey my sincere congratulations to the department on the publication of the journal Planning. Still, I wonder whether it would not produce very good results if that publication were not at the same time enlarged to include, inter alia, more popular educational articles. An attempt should also be made to distribute this journal, as well as the other publications of the department, as widely as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Vasco referred to the Department of Statistics and raised certain questions. Before replying to them I should just like to say that it is a pleasure for me to inform the Committee that since the retirement at the end of March of Mr. Botha as Secretary for Statistics. Dr. Du Plessis has accepted the post. Dr. Du Plessis was the deputy economic adviser of the Prime Minister, and with effect from 1st April he is the Secretary to the Department of Statistics. I want to welcome him here and in the department this afternoon, and express the hope that he will come up to my expectations, and those of others, in that he will render exceptionally good service in that key capacity.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked whether we could not undertake the processing of the agricultural census in greater detail. At least, that is how I understood the hon. member. I was myself at one stage greatly interested in the results of the agricultural census because I had initiated certain research in my own constituency to establish precisely what the financial position of my farmers in the various districts was. I tried to ascertain the figures for myself, independently of the agricultural census, through the commercial banks, local business concerns, the wool co-operatives, the Land Bank, Agricultural Credit, and wherever I could, and in respect of one of my districts in particular I arrived at a certain figure. Subsequently I also obtained a figure from the Department of Statistics which had been drawn directly from the agricultural census forms sent in by the farmers of that particular district themselves. Now I will admit there was a difference, and a rather considerable difference, between my figures and the figures from the agricultural census forms. I do not want to go into this matter any further now. The point I want to make is that with my figures and those of the agricultural census at our disposal we were then able to work out average figures. After the agricultural census information has been processed, it is also published in a publication which is available, i.e. the Agricultural Census Report. Each particular district is mentioned in that report, with its total number of units, the total size, the total standing farmers’ debt, and the total casual debt, and so on. In other words, if all these things are worked out, one can come back again to an average figure. If one were to accept those figures—and personally I think that that figure is in fact too low—one still has an average figure, but then the farmer in a district can at least compare himself with the average to see how he is faring in terms of his district. For us who have to take the lead in the country, who have to plan and who have to lay down policy, it is not really altogether sufficient to have only an average figure. Personally I would prefer also to have a figure in respect of the lower category in particular, the 25% of the farmers, as the hon. member put it, who are really our problem, the people who are perhaps suffering actual hardship. But now one does not know how many there are or who they are. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall read his speech very carefully, and that the Secretary for Statistics will take a look at it. If we are able to make a further breakdown of only one or two of the reply components, so that we need not go into the entire series, we may consider it. In any case, we will have a look at this, and contact the member again.

The hon. member for Vasco discussed statistics. I appreciate what he said, also his words of thanks and congratulations to the department on the rapid processing of the data in respect of the population census. It was really a very fine achievement, and the productivity figure they achieved there was very high.

I come now to the hon. member for Mooi River.

†Listening to the hon. member for Mooi River, who was most enthusiastically supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I thought that it is really a pity that this town and regional planning committee could not be our Department of Planning and the Environment because they really stressed the very good work they have been doing. I do not want to belittle what they have done; I think that they indeed have done good work. We get good co-operation from them. However, although they have done such wonderful work, and the hon. member for South Coast has done such wonderful work, according to the two hon. members, they now come to my department and say: “Please, won’t you take over now and consider limiting the size of these two cities and won’t you now consider establishing these green belts for us”?

They are doing so already.

If they are already doing so, I am very pleased to hear that, because the authority and the power is still in their hands. No one may establish a town in those areas if he cannot obtain their consent, and if he cannot obtain the consent of the Minister of Agriculture to subdivide. And if he cannot adopt that procedure, he cannot establish a town there and he cannot do anything that would affect the green belt. I agree with the hon. member as far as the green belt is concerned. I am just as keen to see it there, and consequently we will take pains to ensure that those areas are kept as open as possible. I think that this is a sound and laudable aim, but I really do not think that we should now try to leave the Department of Planning and the Environment holding the baby; we must try to do the work together and to find out together what the best method of making this adaptation would be. What is more, this does not apply to those areas only; we want this everywhere. The hon. member for Pretoria District also made a plea to me. He made wonderful suggestions concerning a green belt between Johannesburg and Pretoria. However, we must apply this throughout our country for it is of fundamental importance to the future and to our people. As I have said, I agree with the hon. member and we shall help Natal, we shall help the Town and Regional Planning Committee as far as we are able. The question is whether we have any power to limit the size of a city. Actually we have no jurisdiction in this respect except in respect of industrial land. Of course we have been giving consideration to Durban for a year or more, for Durban is really built up; Durban is under pressure as far as land is concerned. We can of course keep the situation only partially in check as far as the allocation of additional industrial land is concerned. We cannot, and I do not want to, argue against the erection of ever-higher buildings and bigger blocks of flats, attracting more people, more business concerns, more offices and other activities. The hon. member said that when it reaches a certain stage, “Then the development must be channelled to other areas”.

†Well, I can only say that I cannot agree with him more. That is what we are trying to do in the Department of Planning. I sincerely hope that the Opposition will as far as it is possible for them as an Opposition, always support us when we do try to develop other areas and when we try to channel development to other areas so as not to get all these over-concentrations in certain areas. Let us make no mistake about it that in the long run we shall run into difficulties and into very high costs in doing so. Surely we do not want to land in the following situation.

*I have been told—and I do not know whether it is true—that there is a school of thought in the United States of America—the hon. member for Winburg also referred to this—that as far as certain cities are concerned, people are beginning to wonder whether it would not be better simply to leave the city as it is and develop a completely new city. The proponents of this school of thought think that this should be done rather than to reshape and rebuild the already existing city. I am not saying that this so, but such a situation could be reached, and I think we have to guard against this. The hon. member referred to compensation to people who fall outside this urban area. The situation is one to which we are giving consideration in another context, for we in the Department of Planning find that there are frequently very good sand and stone deposits near a large urban complex. We cannot develop and build up the land without sand and stone. If we know that this is the case in a certain area, we cannot allow that area to become covered with townships. For that reason we are considering the reservation of certain areas for specific purposes, for which authorization is given by section 4 of the Physical Planning Act. We are considering whether there would be anything wrong in principle with taking such a farm, or such farms, and saying that the axis of development of the city shall not extend to these farms. Then we will add to that that the farms are being reserved for certain specific purposes. However, we are still considering whether a case cannot be made out for our being able to pay compensation in such cases. Where one has an ordinary farm, or a smallholding, adjoining a city and the authorities do not want the city to expand in that direction, I personally do not think that those people can lay claim to any compensation by the State. I think that if we were to introduce that principle we would encounter many difficulties. Once we have made further progress with our plans, I think it would be a good thing if we were to say: Look, this area is agricultural land, while we will have urban expansion in other areas. If that is the case, the person knows when he buys there that it will be no use buying land there for speculative purposes because that land has been reserved for agricultural purposes.

That is not the case today.

That is not the case today. In other words, you are running the risk when you buy such land. You cannot say today that because you have put money into a certain farm, or because a development company has put R1 million into certain land, they should now be allowed to develop a township. As far as we are concerned all the arguments are against that. In such a case they cannot tell me that, in view of the losses they have suffered, such permission should be granted to them. The matter is a very difficult one, and I am merely discussing it for a while.

It has not yet been tested in the courts.

Yes, it has not yet been tested in the courts whether one, in whatever part of the country, should ipso facto have the right to use one’s land for whatever purposes one likes. I do not know whether such a principle exists in our law, nor do I want to comment on this matter.

I want to thank the hon. member for Christiana for his interesting contribution. I am very pleased to hear of the good work my officials did in Pietersburg at the regional conference of development associations, which was held on 22nd March. I think that the regional development associations occupy a very special position in our entire set-up, and that they play a meaningful part in planning. I hope that we will be able to utilize them to an increasing extent. I must reiterate that we appreciate their co-operation and contributions. I just want to say that this meeting was the second of a series of meetings which we have held and are still going to hold. The third meeting will be held in August, and in this way we will gradually cover the entire country. The hon. member asked for a planner for a specific region. I can tell him that we will give this matter our consideration. Perhaps we could subsequently employ some of these people on our staff, and in this way we will then be able to help one another.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central discussed the EDP. The hon. member for Winburg also referred to it. The facts of the matter are as follows: When one is dealing with an economic development programme, one must always remember that it is not a forecast of what will happen; it is a determination of the growth potential of the economy. It is then up to the private sector and the public sector to make their contributions. It depends on their contributions and on the economic conditions whether that aim, that target, that determination of the potential, will be achieved.

It is true that the growth potential is determined by the availability of production factors, i.e. labour and capital. One begins with a base year. If one’s base year is a year in which there was rather considerable utilization of one’s production factors, of labour and capital—in other words, if one’s economy had grown considerably in that year—then it goes without saying that one’s growth rate on that base will be lower than when the base year was a year in which the utilization was not very high in respect of labour and capital. If one’s base year is in other words a low one, then the growth rate is higher, but in actual fact one is still achieving the same result. The achievement is the same, although the one rate was 5,5% and the other 5,75%. That is actually what happened here. We changed our base year to 1971, and 1971 was a sub-normal year. In the first two years, 1970 and 1971, the growth was poor. I am referring now to the old programme for the period 1970 to 1975. When we subsequently had to determine the 1972-’77 programme, we were dealing with the low growth rate of the preceding two years. To achieve the average our growth could actually have been by 5,9% over the last three years of the 1970-’75 programme. According to the new programme, however, we decided instead to grow by 5,75% over the full five years from 1972 to 1977. We will therefore be achieving the same objective, if the economy can make it.

To come now to the actual gist of the hon. member’s argument, I just want to say that capital was not really a major consideration in determining this growth rate. Labour was actually the decisive factor. As the hon. member will realize, the labour which forms the decisive factor is skilled labour. This is the element which forms the decisive factor in determining what the growth rate could be. It is traditional and a historical fact—this is also the fact of the matter today—that the Whites are primarily the skilled labourers. The growth rate is therefore determined by the number of Whites that are available, plus the degree to which one can introduce non-Whites in the sphere of skilled labour. According to this growth rate of 5,75%, we worked out that we will, even during this period, have a shortage of 22 000 Whites. This is not only the approach of the Government. This is the historical fact; this is the tradition of South Africa; this is the set-up in South Africa. There is a rate at which one is able to incorporate the non-Whites; there is also a rate at which one can decentralize, in the Bantu areas and to the border areas. To the extent to which these programmes can coincide, many of them will be able to go into the Bantu homelands where they can do all the skilled work; or they can go to the border areas where they can also do some of the work; or to places where one has adequate numbers of Whites and Coloureds and Indians, supplemented by Bantu in accordance with agreements with the trade unions. That is the long and the short of it; that is what determines one’s growth rate, and that is the best we were able to do to give an indication to the country as an aim for all the sectors, and we hope that they will not only achieve this aim, but will surpass it. This will to a certain extent cause us problems of inflation, but we hope that they will achieve the aim, and then Bantu employment will considerably exceed the supply. In other words, we will then be able to reduce the Bantu unemployment rate, as we would all like to do. There need be no doubt about that.

The hon. member then raised the question of the Port Elizabeth guide plan. We are still working on that guide plan, although we have made a great deal of progress with it. It will probably not be too long now before it is complete. We cannot include individual members of the public in the process of drawing up the plan. It is impossible; we simply cannot do it, because the plan is drawn up by experts, by the planning officers or the planning firm employed by the city council of Port Elizabeth; by the planning division of the province and by our planning division. In addition, we could even call in an outside planning firm if we consider it necessary. The divisional council with its planning personnel is also involved in this, as well as the Railways, Water Affairs and other bodies represented on the Port Elizabeth guide plan committee. One cannot consult every member of the public; one cannot consult this person because he is afraid his farm is going to be affected here, and that person because he is afraid his plot is going to be affected there, and another person because he is afraid his factory will have to be moved. We cannot at this stage consult the public, but when this guide plan has been completed and when I have asked the Administrator whether he is satisfied with the final form of the plan, and when I have then approved the plan on the authority of the Cabinet and have given it to the Press and to the country, and have said: “Here is the guide plan for Port Elizabeth”, then the public of Port Elizabeth can look at the plan and make representations. But even then it is only, as I said this morning, a policy plan; it is then a direction in which this plan can be worked out in detail by the city council, etc. But then the man who has an interest in it has been warned; then he at least knows what is happening here and he will simply have to make further representations there.

The hon. member for Vasco made a very thorough and responsible speech here on future planning, and on the increase in the Coloureds of South Africa with their future buying power, and I want to tell him that we have, frequently in fact, given these matters much thought, and that in our planning we have never lost sight of these elements. I do not want to say that it will be done this year, but we shall once again give very thorough consideration to the complex from Cape Town up to Saldanha with a view to planning. The hon. member asked for planning action for the entire Boland. I can inform him that we are trying to view the Boland as a whole. We have not yet proceeded to do so, but we shall bear it in mind and we may possibly tackle such a project at a later stage, once we have dealt with its constituent parts. At the moment we are of course including in the planning for Cape Town the magisterial districts of Goodwood, Parow, Bellville, Somerset West, Stellenbosch and Paarl, and I think Wellington as well. We are dealing with the matter on a rather comprehensive scale, and all those people are represented on our guide plan, on which we are still working.

I come now to the hon. member for East London North. I accept the assurance of the hon. member here today that they had already at that time adopted a standpoint as M.P.s. I am not reproaching him for having done so. I simply said that I had not heard of anyone discussing it under a Vote of the Minister of Agriculture in this Parliament, but I accept that they showed their colours. I have the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture, per letter, that he will consult me. I have been informed that the South African Wool Board is not unwilling to have an exhaustive investigation instituted by the Government into the wool harbours of South Africa. When the matter reaches me, I shall see whether we can proceed to investigate the matter. I do not want to tell the wool farmers how they should do their work. Under the present scheme I cannot see why they should of necessity have only one wool harbour. I cannot, with the best will in the world, see why that should be the case. But I do not want to comment on the affairs of the wool farmers. They fall under the Marketing Act. Just as any other commodity group in the country can say how it wants to do its marketing, so the wool farmers, too, can probably say how they want to do their marketing, and I cannot interfere in that, but if we are able to institute an investigation into wool harbours, then I have no objection to that. I just want to say in regard to East London that I am doing my best, and that we are all doing our utmost, to give East London development, but it is not all that easy.

I do want to say that we have achieved quite a good deal recently. If it had not been for the special attempts made by the Government under its decentralization programme, I do not think we would have had the degree of industrial development in East London and in King William’s Town which there has in fact been. As for Port Elizabeth, I did not reply to the hon. member for Albany this morning, but I should just like to say something in brief about the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. Sir, I am a representative of the Border, but as a person from the Eastern Cape I shall help Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage just as much as I can, and I make no apology for this either.

Sir, I just want to give you these two sets of figures; I find them quite interesting. The Physical Planning Act came into operation on 19th January, 1968, and the White Paper appeared on 31st May, 1971, i.e. three years and four months later. In those three years and four months 89 applications for new factories were made to our department—for it is a proclaimed area under section 3—of which six were refused because they were situated on farmland, and 83 were approved. For the extension of factories during that period of three years and four months we received 161 applications, of which 137 were approved and 24 rejected. From the date of issue of the White Paper, i.e. from 1st June, 1971 to 31st January, 1973, in other words, in one year and eight months, we have received applications for the erection of 132 factories, as against 89 in the previous period of three years and four months. Of those 132 applications, 123 were approved; and we had 178 applications for the expansion of factories in Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth—as against the previous period’s 171, of which 167 were granted. It therefore seems to me as though Port Elizabeth is not as stagnant as is sometimes implied and that we, on the part of the Department of Planning, have in any case done everything in our power to give them what they asked for.

As regards the other matters affecting Port Elizabeth which hon. members discuss from time to time, I want to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for them, and I hope there will be adequate and sound development. I was delighted to read in the newspaper the other day that the South African Railways has granted Port Elizabeth a tender for the construction of diesel locomotives involving a very large amount.

Sir, the hon. member for Langlaagte discussed the stone quarries in the southern suburbs, and then he also referred to a further application which is still to be made. I want to tell him that we will consider this at once, and that we will also give attention to the new application. Here we are of course dealing again with the major fundamental question we discussed this morning, i.e. how far the powers of this department extend. Is it a factory or is it not a factory? If this new one is a factory, then we could perhaps control it under section 3, the section which the Opposition does not like. But if it is not a factory, this undertaking falls solely under the Department of Mines. That is one of the things I said this morning. There are quite a number of them in this country, all of them basic and important matters in regard to which I feel that apart from whoever has to decide about it, this department should also be able to decide and should also be able to say yes or no. But we will consider this. I assure the hon. member that we will do so as quickly as possible. In fact, I have already issued instructions this afternoon, and we will get in touch with him in regard to this matter. Then the hon. member discussed the environment in his constituency, the Klip River Valley and the Olifantsvlei complex, etc., and he invited me to come and see it. We shall definitely do so. We have made considerable progress. We have divided the Witwatersrand area into three parts, and we are making rapid progress. But it is a large area and because there are so many bodies operating and developing and planning there, it is a difficult area. But we shall consider it. I want to inform the hon. member that I will pay him a visit, for there are other things as well I want to see.

The hon. member for Vryheid asked whether we could not draw up a guide plan for Northern Natal. There is a great deal of water and the area is going to become very important with the new railway line running through it. I think I have already let the hon. member know that I shall pay him a visit later in the year, and then we can look into this matter a little further. But we think that area has very great potential, and if it has potential we must consider it and we must ensure that we know what is happening there and what we want there. The hon. member may accept that attention will be given to this area.

Sir, I think I have replied to all the hon. members. I should just like to say that I appreciate the discussion which has been held here today. I appreciate the atmosphere in which this Vote has been discussed. I was also delighted to see that there is not really very much difference between us. That was my standpoint from the beginning, that there should be one central Government Department for the environment. If it does not have powers it must obtain powers. If it is able to do the work it must do the work, and it does not make any difference to me what method is employed. At the moment I have my method which I employ to do that work, but there has to be one central Government Department for the environment. All the different bodies which have a task must perform that task under the supervision of this department and its Minister. They must not take this up the wrong way, because it is important. We must educate our people. Perhaps it is a mistake on the part of this department that we do not go about all the time telling all and sundry what we are doing. One of these days the S.A.B.C. is going to begin a series of short slogans over the radio, in Afrikaans, English and all the different Bantu languages, on all the programmes, which will deal with the environment and pollution, so as to bring home to people how important this matter is to us all. We asked them to do this. We are at work in the schools and with the educational authorities, for we realize that one should inspire every child in this country, White, Black and Brown, to conserve the environment, beginning with his own backyard and his own room or bathroom.

Where does the environment begin? It begins with me and my back door, my front door, my street, my town, my city and my factory, and the picnic place where I have a picnic, and the places where I go camping. For that reason man is so important for man is the protector of the environment and the one who will suffer if the environment is not preserved. Man has this great privilege that he shares this universe of ours with all the other living organisms, but that he alone has received intelligence from Above, to give guidance and make plans. We have proceeded on our merry way, we have pursued wealth, we have built tarred roads, concrete buildings and bridges, we have manufactured steel and motor vehicles, we have let the chimneys belch out smoke, and we have designed all kinds of substances to kill the insects and disrupt the balance of nature.

For a long time things went very well, but we must also realize in South Africa that we have reached the point—I will not say that we have reached the cross-roads —where we should all devote thorough and sound attention to this matter. I am satisfied that the research being done at the C.S.I.R. and everywhere else is being done on a very sound foundation. I should appreciate it very much if I might ask Dr. Halliday to tell the hon. member for South Coast at some time or another—that would be interesting—about everything they are doing and know. We simply have to do the work. I have here a document which I shall give to the hon. member in which it is stated—I am sorry that I did not look it up in advance for then I would have been able to quote it—that in addition to all these fine ideas, what counts in the long run is the “day-to-day hard work”. That is what will count. We must simply do this work, day after day and with a clear picture in mind of where we want to go and what we have to work with. I appreciate the discussion which has taken place.

Mr. Chairman, before you put the Votes, I should like, on behalf of this side of the Committee, to wish the hon. the Minister a fruitful journey overseas, good health and the opportunity to learn much while he is there. We hope that he will have a successful and happy return to our country.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 13 and Loan Vote O. “Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, may *I request the privilege of the half hour?

We have before us this afternoon a record Defence budget for South Africa, a budget which calls from the taxpayers of South Africa a total of close to R500 million, some R481 million. In American parlance that would be R0,5 billion. I know that R0,5 billion is not much when you talk of American Defence, but it is an increase of 33% on last year’s budget on Revenue Account and it is not a Vote which we in this House can take lightly. Therefore we must apply to it certain tests. The first test, I believe, is whether it is necessary. We in the Opposition have tried to apply that test by looking at the situation in South Africa, looking at the threats which face us and the potential threats which face us and looking at the fact that terrorism is today a reality in relation to South Africa. In the light of those threats we in the Opposition believe that, judged by the test of necessity, this money which we are being asked to vote is necessary and therefore we are prepared to support this.

The terrorist threats which face us today are of a nature which can be dealt with mainly as a Police action. However, I believe that they will only remain a Police action for as long as we have available a stronger deterrent, a real deterrent which prevents those terrorist threats escalating into conventional or large-scale attacks. Therefore I believe that part of the message that should go out to the youth of South Africa from this Parliament in dealing with this Vote is a message of reality, the reality of the need for defending our country.

Only last weekend five Black men gave their lives for our security. They were killed by terrorists on our frontiers—four policemen and a tracker. This should indicate to South Africa’s youth that this is not just a game we are playing; while Black men give their lives for our security, White men must carry their responsibility as well. So it is necessary that from this Parliament there should be the sacrifice of money, and from the youth of South Africa there should be the sacrifice of time and the acceptance of the inconveniences and the irritations which military service necessarily carries with it. I would like to quote something which a world leader of today said recently. He said—

That, I think, is something which we should remember. Those words of Pres. Nixon were published on 14th March in the American Digest. I hope they mean that Pres. Nixon and the American people will apply to the threats against South Africa this same condemnation of terrorism and this same standard when it comes to our threat to the sovereignty of our free country. That is what this Vote which is before us this afternoon is all about, providing the wherewithal for the security and protection of our sovereignty as a nation.

But we have applied a second test, namely to test this Vote against international norms. We find that the expenditure which we are being asked to vote has increased from 2.5% to 3,3% of the gross national income. We have to ask ourselves whether this is realistic in the context of world economics and the budgets of other countries. Again the answer is “Yes”. For that reason, too, we are prepared to support and agree to the expenditure for which we are being asked to vote.

But in accepting this budget, there is a very heavy responsibility placed upon Parliament, and we on this side are prepared and willing to accept our share of that responsibility. But I believe that we cannot play our proper part in sharing that responsibility because we do not have the essential knowledge which we need if we are really to play our part. Naturally, we have contact with the hon. the Minister and his department, with senior officers, with officers at all levels. I personally have raised with the hon. the Minister many issues. I have had much correspondence, with the Minister and his department, with the Commandant-General, the heads of the different services and with others who are responsible for different aspects of defence. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Minister and to his staff for the co-operation which I have always received whenever I have raised any matter. We have, too, the White Paper which has been tabled. I mention, for instance, that after the Budget debate last year the hon. the Minister had the courtesy to write to me and reply in full to five issues which I had raised here and to which he had not replied in the debate. I might say that in all this I think the Minister and I have had one clash. For the rest, we have been in agreement, for example, on matters such as road safety and all types of problems which affect the department. It may therefore be necessary to explain what I now want to say, because notwithstanding this background of apparent co-operation I want to say that real communication does not exist between the Government and the Opposition. Communication does exist in relation to specific detail, in relation to specific problems. In previous years we have been taken behind the curtain from time to time to see a little corner of what is happening there, but mainly our contact has been in the form of formal functions. The hon. the Minister will agree that not once over the last year have we sat down together to discuss any of the fundamental issues. In regard to expenditure we see the tip of the iceberg. We have the budget here, the estimates, and one could take them point by point and ask questions on them, but that would be meaningless, because by the very nature of defence its expenditure is cloaked in secrecy. By the very nature of our situation in South Africa much of that secrecy applies to the expenditure—purchases and so on. In the field of internal security we in the Opposition have taken some knocks, because we believe it is our duty to co-operate where it is necessary in this field.

Surely, then, it is even more important in the field of external security. I want this afternoon to renew our offer to the Government, our offer of co-operation on a more solidly based foundation than that of informal discussion and casual co-operation on specific issues. We are not wedded to the detail but we believe that there should be a more realistic liaison, in a form which will enable us in the Opposition to play the part which we believe we have to play and which we are willing to play towards the defence of our country.

I give as an example the speech made by a former Commandant-General this year. He is a man who as Commandant-General knows what is going on. To us in the Opposition who do not know and who do not have the detailed knowledge, this was and is a heaven-sent opportunity to attack the Government. Here we have the recently retired Commandant-General saying “ons het geen kans teen sterk vyande nie”, and strongly criticizing the preparedness and the state of the security of South Africa. It is a strong temptation to an Opposition to exploit such a matter, but we have not played politics with it and do not intend doing so. I mention it only as one of the ways where we are in the dark and where, when a speech like this is made, we should have access to information rather than encouragement to exploit it to the detriment of South Africa. Obviously we have our unofficial information. We have information from various sources and we say, too, that we have our own doubts and our own worries about numerous questions concerning defence. We could ask those questions across the floor of the House to the detriment of South Africa, to the harm of our country and to the detriment of our Defence Force I am not saying this in the form of a threat, neither in the form of a plea. I do not believe that when you are dealing with the safety of your country that you need either to threaten or to plead when you are offering your co-operation on a soundly based footing.

But let me raise a few matters where we can ask questions in a less sensitive field rather than ask questions in the sensitive field to which I have just referred. Year after year we have discussed in this House the question of national service. For the last three years we in the Opposition have expressed concern about the way in which the national service system was operating. We have made suggestions in debates as well as directly in regard to possible improvements which we believe would help. Now, this session, we have before us this White Paper which shows that we have been correct in many of the things which we have stated in the House and many of the things we have offered as possible solutions. We now have a committee investigating the national service system, a committee which, obviously, we knew about unofficially, but which officially did not exist as far as we were concerned. One would have thought that where a committee is investigating a matter in regard to which we in the Opposition have expressed criticism and have made suggestions, it would have been natural that we would be invited to put those suggestions to the committee concerned. Let me say that we have access, perhaps even better access than the department and the Minister, to the young men who are serving as national servicemen. They are more likely to talk freely to us than to the Minister, or to his staff or officers. They are more likely to talk freely to us than to Government members.

Nonsense!

Yes, by the very nature of things it is so. However, whether it be true or not, the fact is that they do talk to us and since we have never heard one word of criticism from the Government benches, we must assume that they do not talk to Government members; but they do talk to us.

That is a stupid assumption.

It may be, but the fact is that no Government member has during a debate in this House raised issues which are raised with us week in and week out. The fact is that we do get these complaints. Therefore I believe that we have a part to play and a contribution to make.

We have discussed in this House under this Vote the question, for instance, of the Citizen Force officer corps. I pleaded with the hon. the Minister last year in this regard and said that the morale and the spirit amongst the voluntary officers was in a serious state. Correctly, as Minister he had to deny it but the White Paper now confirms that even the department is concerned about this matter and is taking steps to try to rectify it. I have not time to deal with that question now but it is recorded on pages 9 and 10 of the White Paper. I mention this merely to show that we are not talking through our hats when we raise criticisms here.

We have discussed the question of a Permanent Force brigade, a full-time combat unit. Particularly the hon. member for North Rand has raised this. The White Paper confirms that it is now in line with official thinking. So I could quote example after example. We have questioned and criticized the ten-year spread which we believe is killing our Citizen Force regiments. That, too, is now the subject of investigation. However, it is hopeless to try to discuss matters of this kind across the floor of this House. For our whole defence group here we have a matter of only 120 minutes. Many of these are matters which one does not want to throw across the floor of the House, not in public in any case, and even if you did, you still could not deal with them realistically in 120 minutes of debate. Therefore I emphasize once more that we feel that there should be a more solidly based and closer form of co-operation and liaison between ourselves and the Government.

While I am referring to the White Paper I would like to say in passing that I welcome the announcement which has been made about the creation of an Indian Corps and I welcome the training which the Cape Coloured Corps receive in combat methods as combat troops. I also like the increase of and what I believe is an improved attitude towards Coloureds in the Navy where they have a part to play. We believe that these non-White people have as big a responsibility and are willing to make a sacrifice towards our security. Of this we must make use.

I have one criticism in regard to the White Paper. I hope that it is a criticism of translation. I refer to pages 4 and 5 which deal with the threat to South Africa and with the SADF’s strategy. Under “The Threat” it states:

Under “Departmental Strategic Policy” it states—

What I believe is meant here, and I hope that that is the position, is “the State” and not “the Government”. The Government is a political party …

No, man!

The Government is a political party which is temporarily in power. At present this is the Nationalist Party which is in political control of South Africa. That is the Government. The Government sits on the benches on the opposite side of the House and it has a Cabinet. What we believe is threatened and what we believe must be protected by the Department of Defence is the State, the authority of the State of South Africa. We want it to refer to the country and the State and not to a political Government. I raise this for a particular reason; I raise it because this concept, this confusion of Government with State is something which concerns us. We get it from national servicemen in regard to motivation lectures. They come out believing that it is their duty to support the Government and the Nationalist Party and not the State of South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not laugh, because this is a fact. I state it as a fact and I raise it because here it appears in a public document in exactly that form. It is something which I hope will not continue.

It is strange that Nationalism and patriotism should always be confused.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with certain other matters and I want to say that I take the strongest exception to the remark which has just been made by way of interjection by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

I say it again.

Say it again so that we can get it on record.

You have heard what I said.

Let us get it on record!

I am saying that you are always confusing patriotism with Nationalism.

Let me put it on record that South African nationalism and patriotism is common to all South African citizens and not to that little group of isolationist hecklers who shout when we talk of South African nationalism and patriotism as applying to the State of South Africa. [Interjections.] We will not go to that hon. member for any lessons in patriotism or for any lessons in loyalty this afternoon.

In the few minutes left to me I want to deal with one or two other matters. Firstly, last year in November I raised with the hon. the Minister the question of the attitude of employers towards national service. I asked a question about the attitude of employers towards the employment of people and the granting of facilities to them. The hon. the Minister very kindly said that he would contact me again, and he issued a statement in February of this year with which I wholeheartedly agree. I welcome it; I endorse it and I hope that the employers of South Africa will pay heed to the appeal of the hon. the Minister and not place obstructions in the way of national servicemen. It therefore came as a shock to me, Sir, to find an advertisement only a week after in fact I had written to the hon. the Minister, which says the following—

That is exactly what I was referring to, and I believe that that is a disgrace. I believe that it is unpatriotic, and I want to call upon the hon. the Minister of National Education, whose department is responsible for this, to give heed to the appeal of the hon. the Minister of Defence and the support we have given to it, because this is an advertisement for television staff under his control in the SABC. Here, from a Government department, we get the very thing which I have been complaining about in the private sector. If anything, the Government should set an example and not blatantly and publicly discriminate against boys who are serving their country in the Defence Force.

I want to raise too the question of medical services. I do not intend going into this in detail, but I want to say that I have raised a large number of cases with the Surgeon-General. I express my appreciation for his co-operation. On every occasion he has investigated the matter and has shown complete sincerity and sympathy which I accept. I do not question it. But the Surgeon-General cannot be present on every sick parade. I want to say that there is a wrong attitude towards people reporting sick, a wrong attitude towards private medical certificates. There is a hostility towards anybody who goes to camp with a private medical certificate, a hostility which you sense. I want to appeal for the spirit and the attitude of the Surgeon-General to be translated and to be carried through to every level of our medical services. He himself is sympathetic. I am not going to deal with any details at all. I just want to state that this is one of the matters which concerns us and which I believe requires attention. It is a matter in respect of which I would much prefer us to work on a different level than across the floor of this House. Things are different from 1940 when the “quack” put his hand on you and if you were warm he said: “You are A.1.” In those days, if you reported sick and were walking it was a case of medicine and duty. Things are different now and we must have a different approach.

I mention one matter on which I clashed with the hon. the Minister and that is in regard to the handling of the parents of deceased servicemen. I want to record here what I recorded publicly and in correspondence to the hon. the Minister. I want to record that this sort of thing should not happen. On 13th September, 1970, there was an accident in which national servicemen were killed. I am now at this moment —I wrote a letter yesterday—still dealing with this issue. I shall not go into all the details because I do not have the time, but I want to say that I had to intervene. The Department of Defence and the State Attorney refused to act on behalf of the parents of these boys. They received no compensation and only a matter of weeks before their claims became prescribed by time, did I finally get a final decision that the department would not act on their behalf. The parents had to pay for the graves, the tomb stones and the burial expenses of their sons. All the department paid was R20 unless they accepted a military funeral. I have had to go to the Minister of Transport and get a certificate from him to allow the parents to apply against the insurance company after the prescription of their claims. I have had to negotiate with the insurance companies, both the motor vehicle and the life insurance companies, and I am dealing with the last claim at this moment. One parent was paid out the cost of the grave and the tombstone and was then asked to refund the money. Eventually I got the money by liaison with the insurance company. Sir, that is not the job of an M.P., and it should not be necessary. I want to say that I am most unhappy that this red tape and these delays and the apparent fear of grasping the nettle and coming to a decision should have led to the amount of correspondence in this file which is an inch and a half thick and which any hon. member is free to come and look at if he wishes to do so. There has been correspondence with people right up to the Prime Minister, and this sort of thing should not happen. I mention this as an indication of some of the things about which we are unhappy, and I do so in order to indicate that when we approve of nearly half a billion rands in this House, we do not do so as a blank cheque; we do so retaining our responsibility to the people of South Africa and to Parliament to complain when there is reason for complaint. I have brought to this Committee today only those matters on which I have not received satisfaction when I have taken them up through other channels. I could mention dozens and dozens of other cases which have been settled, cases which would make nice stories if one wanted to use them, but I do not believe that that is the purpose of this debate. I have only raised those matters where I have bumped my head against a brick wall and where I have not been able to get satisfaction in any other way. Sir, in this debate we will deal with many other matters—with the question of equipment for training camps with some of the unnecessary and, we believe, petty annoyances; with the question of training, with the question of allocations and various other matters. I do not have time to deal with them now. I conclude by again offering to the Government our co-operation in the hope that we will find a better and more satisfactory means than we have at the moment to enable us to play our part in the defence of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, there is one matter on which we, to my mind, should gradually be getting clarity in this House, and that is the standpoint the hon. member for Durban Point and certain other speakers of the United Party adopt here year after year, i.e. that they are the people who enjoy the confidence of the national servicemen of South Africa and that the national servicemen of South Africa do not have any confidence in the representatives of the Nationalist Party. This is the picture the hon. member for Durban Point wants to present here year after year. Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. member for Durban Point: Does he expect Government members to noise abroad any criticism they may have to level and any inquiries they may have to make? Surely we are not such fools; surely we are not so undisciplined. We are not seeking sensation. Surely we know our way; surely we know our Minister and we know our Department of Defence and all the people concerned with these matters. We know that we have easy access to these people. Do we have to come along and use the floor of this House to make inquiries here and to hold up files 1½" thick here? Must I also go to my office now and bring back my five or six files which are thicker than the hon. member’s files, and say: “Here are my files of correspondence during the past year?” Surely we do not do such things.

This is only one matter.

No, Sir, this is not the way it is done. If the hon. member had so much trouble with one matter, the fault lies with him and with no one else.

Sir, at the same time I want to clarify the position with regard to a different matter—this is a sphere in respect of which the hon. the Minister will furnish the hon. member with a reply—and that is that the representatives of the United Party may do well to consider whether they act with enough political responsibility in some respects to be entrusted with the real inside information on defence matters. [Interjections.] Sir, we must not play politics when discussing this Vote; this is not our attitude either; we try to co-operate with one another, but the hon. member for Durban Point comes along with this introductory speech year after year; he wants to deal a few political blows here and expects us to keep quiet for the sake of the goodwill that should exist in this regard and because there should be concerted attempts in this regard in South Africa to show the outside world … [Interjection.] Why does the hon. member for East London City, who has so much to say here, not tell his representatives in Johannesburg that they should not make such blatant requests for the release of Fischer? Here Mr. Epstein, United Party MPC, declares officially that the United Party would welcome it. He says—

Why do they not say anything about that? I do not want to waste my time by furnishing examples, but I want to make it clear: We on this side of the House will not allow this sort of thing to happen year after year and keep quiet simply for the sake of maintaining goodwill. I leave it at that. I think I have made it sufficiently clear. This question of goodwill may also be taken too far, and especially with regard to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Something which to my mind does constitute a serious matter for the exchange of ideas in this debate is the whole question of the motivation of our people. With regard to motivation I also include all of us who have to debate these matters today. Today we have the situation that many people ask whether the problem does exist, and therefore I am grateful that the hon. the Minister, in his introduction to this White Paper, uses words to identify this problem as a war of “low intensity”. This is what our public does not always realize. We are dealing with a war of low intensity and because it is a war which is being waged in densely overgrown areas and in areas far removed from the public eye, the public is not so keenly aware of it and it is, therefore, asked whether the danger does in fact exist. The hon. member quite rightly referred to the five members of the Force who were shot dead on the border recently. We simply have to look at what is happening in Mozambique and in the Eastern Caprivi and in Angola. Therefore I am grateful that the hon. the Minister and his department thought it fit to allow the Press to visit some of our special training units during the past recess. Here I would like to refer especially to the many fine and positive reports which were published in our English and Afrikaans newspapers after these reporters had visited Walvis Bay, as well as Kimberley and the parachute battalion at Bloemfontein. These happen to be three of the articles I have read from time to time and which were particularly gratifying to take cognizance of. I think that if we could have more articles of this nature in which it is stressed for which purpose these men are being trained, one will find that people will ask less frequently whether the danger does in fact exist. In this regard I want to shift the accent to a certain extent to the negative and in this I would like to include all members of this House as well as those of the Other Place, as well as former senior officers of the Defence Force, of whom we had an example recently when one of them made statements which were quite uncalled for—and he happened to say this in my home town—and that is that we cannot be too careful in what we say to the outside world. We must not create the situation for people, be they members of the National Party or be they members of the United Party, to ask why they should worry about their position, because, after all, Minister P. W. Botha has at his disposal a Defence Force which can resist the danger if necessary; or why they should join the commandos because there are enough servicemen who are being trained; or why they should devote their energies to the Citizen Force because surely there are enough men in Pretoria to take care of a little war. And we do come across these things because public representatives are not always as careful as they should be, whether in private conversation or in public speeches, in what they say on this score. Neither must we have the situation, a situation we do have in South Africa today, of some fathers and their sons, having such enthusiasm and inspiration flocking to the commandos, boys of 12, 13 and 14 years old. Sir, I can furnish you with examples and mention names and I can show you some correspondence. One actually has difficulty in pointing out to them that they are far too young for this sort of thing. These are young people who want to take part in commando activities, and representations are even being made to the commandos by fathers and other responsible people in the commandos, for these boys to be given the opportunity to take part.

Then we also have areas in our country where commandos simply have to make do with 40 men per commando. These are commandos who are directly in the danger zones on the borders of South Africa. In discussing this important Defence Vote, we as public representatives therefore have a special duty in what we do and say and our behaviour towards the outside world in this matter.

I would like to refer to another aspect. This Defence Budget represents approximately 3,3% of the gross national product if everything is taken into account. This is less than that of a large percentage of comparable countries. What matters to me, however, is the following: Although it is less, although it compares favourably, is this the right amount? Should we not reach a situation where this House or the Government decides that X% of the gross national product should be spent on Defence matters as Rhodesia was able to say? They said that 2% of their gross national product should be spent on Bantu education and that has been the position with them for at least the past 10 years. Have we not reached a stage where the hon. the Minister of Defence must be told: X% of the gross national product is made available for Defence for at least 10 years. I suggest this because programming is undertaken on a five-year basis today and because, to my mind, it is extremely difficult to try and budget on an uncertain amount from year to year for a programming system such as the one the Defence Force has.

Here we have an excellent increase with regard to defence on land. The increase exceeds R47 million. The increase with regard to air defence is R19 million. I am thinking of only two items: On the one hand the hon. the Minister has for years had a tremendous backlog in regard to housing, and on the other hand, if one looks at this increase in armaments, one asks oneself the question: what is our position today with regard to heavy artillery, anti-aircraft defence and heavy tanks. Is the hon. the Minister in the position where he does not meet any problems in a budget of this nature—he is not dealing with R1 million or R5 million; he deals with approximately R100 million at a time. I think he must have problems. Therefore I hope that this debate will lead to a decision being taken that South Africa will tell the Government in future: Take X% of the gross national product for Defence expenditure and budget accordingly. I think we will then give the hon. the Minister and his department a better opportunity to provide for these difficult problems which confront us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not going to use the few minutes at my disposal to react to the derogatory remarks passed by the hon. member for Potchefstroom about the hon. member for Durban Point nor to his rather nasty insinuation. I leave it to the public of South Africa to judge whether this side of the House can be trusted with defence secrets or not.

You are all right, Bronkie, but what about Japie?

The expenditure which we are earmarking for defence this time is nothing more or less than a premium paid on a policy of insuring our security and safety. I think our job here is to examine whether we get adequate protection from the policy for which we pay this high premium. Are we over-insured or are we under-insured? I am sorry to say that I do not think that we can discuss this matter intelligently because we do not have the necessary information at our disposal. By the very nature of the duties and the responsibilities and the position of the Department of Defence this information cannot be published and cannot be made use of in public. We have received the White Paper for which we are very grateful and which contains very useful information, but we are still very much in the dark. What we need is an overall and detailed appreciation of the situation that is facing this country today. Of course, only the Government has that information. We—and I make bold to say that I think members on the other side of the House as well—are not fully aware neither of the threat against us today nor of the state of readiness and efficiency of our armed forces. That is why I cannot support the plea of the member for Durban Point too strongly for the creation of some machinery of communication between the Government and ourselves. Like him I too believe that we can all make a better contribution to the defence of our country if we have this information.

You will recall that for years we have pleaded for a standing committee on defence matters, through which this information can be given. There are countries in the world where such committees are in existence, and they serve a very useful purpose. We have had a recommendation from the Schlebusch Commission as regards a standing committee on State security. If a standing committee on State security is necessary, I think it is equally necessary that such a committee should be established for defence matters. I want to appeal once more to the Minister to reconsider the suggestion, or to find some way of putting Parliament into the picture to a greater extent as far as defence is concerned.

We have for a large number of years spent large sums of money on defence. As the hon. member for Potchefstroom has mentioned, there are people who say: “Well, we spend all this money, and let Mr. Botha and his Army get on with it.” That is not correct at all. Each and every individual in these days has a vital and urgent role to play. Until recently very many people have thought that, because we spend all this money, everything in the garden is lovely. I make no apology for once again referring to the speech by the former Commandant-General. I thought that that speech was most disturbing and distressing, because he is the man who should know. He was Commandant-General for many years. He was responsible for the build-up of our Army and for training, and ought to know, better than any of us, what the State of affairs is. It was therefore most distressing to hear his derogatory remarks about the state of our defences and his statement of the fact that South Africa does not have a single ally in this world. That is unfortunately a statement of fact. I think that is a matter which the Government should try and put right. However, as far as his other statement is concerned, I think that the Government should clear the air and tell South Africa exactly what the position is.

My friend from Durban Point has referred to the training scheme for national servicemen. I am going to offer some criticism. First of all, let me admit squarely that we in the United Party are as responsible for that scheme as the Government. We sat in the Select Committee, and in all good faith we agreed that we should go along the lines laid down. We have tried that scheme now for a number of years, and I am afraid that it is not as successful as we thought it would be at the time. There are certain shortcomings. We find that, unfortunately, the training scheme is not at all popular with very many of our young people.

There are numbers of reasons for their attitude. To my mind, there are two reasons which are of more importance than the others. Firstly, I think that the period of commitment, namely 10 years, is too long. Secondly, there is the fact that the servicemen are paid poorly. It really seems as if a review of this whole scheme is necessary. The review is necessary with a view to shortening the period of commitment. I think if we can bring that period down to four years, or at the most five years, we shall find that the scheme will not be so unpopular and that the response will be better.

The unpopularity of the training scheme is today, I feel, reflected in the Citizen Force units where these trainees are posted to after completion of their first year’s training. As has been mentioned by many people, the morale in the Citizen Force units is unfortunately not what it should be. The volunteer element is not as enthusiastic as it should be; they are not so ready to come forward to do their stuff. We must remember that in the Citizen Force the volunteer element is very important. The officers, the senior NCOs and the NCOs are all men who have gone through their training and who are keen enough to join and give of their valuable time to serve in these units. That is one aspect that will have to be gone into very thoroughly indeed. Furthermore, these Citizen Force units do not get together often enough. The officers do not see their men frequently enough and there is not the co-operation that there should be. Therefore the shortening of the period of training should receive very serious consideration indeed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said. He mentioned certain points as a matter of conviction and I believe the hon. the Minister will deal with them in the course of this debate. I just want to come back for a brief moment to the hon. member for Durban Point, whose habit it has been to get up year after year and, firstly, hit out left and right at the Government, something which in my opinion is totally undeserved, and in the second place, concern himself with all kinds of trivialities, and all this behind a façade of reasonableness and naïveté

To get up in the Defence debate and complain about the fact that the Opposition has only 120 minutes to debate as important a matter as Defence, is, after all, ridiculous. Surely he must go and quarrel with his Whips about that, and not with us. He must take the matter up with his Whips and not with the Minister of Defence or his side of the House. He comes along with the ridiculous suggestion that the Opposition should also be asked for its comment concerning matters to be investigated by a departmental committee. Then he refers to this departmental committee appointed by the Defence Force to investigate the whole system of compulsory military training. Since when has it been the practice for political parties to have the right to interfere with the activities of departmental committees? However, I leave the hon. member at that, because I want to turn to a more elevated matter.

I am really rising to express my appreciation for certain action taken by the Defence Force, action which should really command the appreciation of all of us. I refer specifically to the way the South African Medical Service handles the problem of drug addiction in the Defence Force. Unfortunately it must be recorded that in the Defence Force, too, this problem has been experienced to an increasing extent since the introduction of compulsory military training. The problems connected with this matter have far-reaching results not only for the Defence Force but they even penetrate into various facets of our other community structures in South Africa. Under the leadership of the Surgeon-General, positive action has been initiated to deal with this problem in the Defence Force. In the first place this action has been initiated scientifically because it requires multi-disciplinary conduct. In other words, not only medical practitioners, not only social workers and not only psychologists are used in this action against drug addiction in our Defence Force. At present the disciplinary bodies involved here are social workers, spare time and sport officers, chaplains, psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses and, last but not least, the military police. In other words, the basis of the problem and all its facets are being tackled by these people who are responsible for this task.

When one inspects the figures, it is alarming to find that in a year such as 1971, for which data have been made available in the South African Medical Journal of 4th November, 1972, the Defence Force dealt with 188 servicemen who were addicted to drugs. This is disturbing if one considers that the people who were engaged in this project, found that in each instance where a serviceman had become addicted to drugs, he had acquired the habit by starting to smoke dagga. I stress this because there is a popular idea abroad that the smoking of dagga is an innocent activity. There was even an hon. member sitting in this House who said on occasion in public that the smoking of dagga was an innocent way of passing the time among young people. Each of these 188 had smoked dagga at one or other time to a lesser or a greater extent. Of these 188, 32% used LSD, and this is probably one of the most dangerous drugs known to us. Another disturbing factor is that of these servicemen, 23,6% had eventually become addicted to “mainline drugs” as they are commonly known, in other words, morphine or the derivatives of opium. Here the Defence Force was really dealing with a formidable problem because these were all people of varying backgrounds who had to join the Defence Force against their will. It is therefore very encouraging that the results which have been achieved are so good and compare so well with the results achieved in the rest of the world. The figure given as regards success achieved in the rehabilitation of these servicemen paints a heartening picture because one is dealing with a very complex problem. Between 50% and 60% of all drug addicts stopped using drugs completely. Of these people 30% still had a tendency to use drugs, but they offered a greater resistance and the finding was that if circumstances in their civil milieu were favourable, a large percentage of this 30% would also finally stop using drugs. Only 10% to 20% of the cases may be regarded as failures with a hopeless prognosis. The fine action taken by the Defence Force even caused greater powers overseas to make enquiries here. I have here in my hand a report compiled by the Surgeon-General concerning this particular action by the Defence Force. There is a base on the Limpopo River in a picturesque part of our country called Greeffswald, where these military trainees who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being addicted to drugs, are sent, for two basic reasons. In the first place they are sent there to isolate them from the milieu where they had had access to drugs. In the second place they are sent there because this contributes actively to their rehabilitation. This is not a colony where they are kept in isolation, nor is it a work colony. The base is administered like any other Defence Force base. These young boys are trained in the usual combat exercises and they are treated like ordinary soldiers and trained like ordinary military servicemen. However, their spiritual hygiene is also taken care of and they are actively treated to combat the problem they have to deal with. I think that in the years ahead this base at Greeffswald will come to be regarded as an ornament of and a great credit to our Defence Force. Excellent work is being done by dedicated people and when this is the approach, it can hardly be anything else than a gem in our Defence Force. I quote from the report I mentioned a moment ago, which was given to another power and which, deals with this project—

I want to conclude by quoting the following words used by the hon. the Minister—

I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with that statement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, every year during the discussion of the Defence Vote the hon. member for Durban Point opens the debate with a grand gesture of co-operation, but in between there are always pinpricks aimed at the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Defence Force. One matter the hon. member for Durban Point can really stop pressing, is his continual reference to the so-called poor treatment of the parents of servicemen who die in action. The hon. member may do well to consider the fact that this is a very sensitive matter for the parents who have lost a son. In fact, the hon. member should be ashamed of himself. After the hon. member had attacked the hon. the Minister on 5th November in the Sunday Express, the hon. the Minister went to the trouble of issuing a full explanation and statement which were subsequently published in that newspaper. The hon. member made no mention of that this afternoon. Contained in that statement by the hon. the Minister are all the answers which the hon. member is looking for. I want to maintain that that hon. member knows that the Defence Force does everything in its power to accommodate and more than accommodate such unfortunate parents. The hon. member must please stop making these unfortunate parents even more unhappy through this kind of reference.

Various hon. members referred to the general military threat in Africa and we are all very grateful for this very ably compiled White Paper before us which we have all read very carefully. Since we are now beginning to consider modifying the system of compulsory military service, it appears to me that we should perhaps, within the set-up of our Army structure, again establish a few full-time crack infantry units modelled after the old legendary Special Service Battalion. Next to this Special Service Battalion of old were the Mobile Guards, one of which has become the paratrooper battalion. I think we should again establish these formidable guerrilla units with devastating fighting power. I have great appreciation for the paratrooper battalion of today, but we should realistically determine whether a few more specially trained shock units—I call them “shock units”—should not be established. Such units could be called “strike units” or “strike commandos” in English. I have in mind units which would be highly mobile and also highly trained, particularly in infantry, military engineering and signalling and equipped with the best and most modem equipment they would require for guerrilla warfare. Sir, we have those men, in spite of the Jeremiads of the hon. member for North Rand concerning morale. He should know better than that. We have the material, the motivated young trainees and officers. We have them by the hundreds, people to whom this Republic, this national flag of ours, our national anthem, our Defence Force uniform and the discipline which that involves, really mean something. We who work with those boys, know this. These are the men for a special “surprise and strike” unit of this kind.

Sir, our Army leadership, under direction of General Louw, is doing outstanding work in respect of preparations for the defence of our national borders. I want to say that our people are very grateful for that. We have the utmost praise for what it is doing. There are those elements—and here I must to some extent agree with the hon. member—who turns up with a surly face for the initial training. But must we blame those boys? Must we not perhaps seek the fault in the homes or in their schools, where the necessary motivation and discipline are perhaps lacking? As far as I am concerned—and this is the way many of our people feel—we must seek out those motivated people, those dedicated people. Let us give them of our best. Give them a 25% increase in their pay. In this way one will be able to create some excellent small fighting units, proud fighting units, not necessarily made up of those who shine on the parade ground, but masters of their weapons, experts in the veld and forest, fit and alert. But those few slackers to whom the hon. member for North Rand referred, those unwilling, weak-kneed fellows, should not be left out. Fortunately they are in the minority. It is not worth the trouble to spend much money in trying to give them military training, because they do not want to be trained. Do not exempt that element; send that element to go and perform some useful national service during their period of service so that those fellows who come from Hillbrow, those with long hair hanging almost to their buttocks, can learn that labour ennobles and can feel the perspiration of hard work on their bodies. When they have learnt that, then bring them back to the fighting units; then they will become an asset. Sir, this afternoon I can say frankly in this House that in our Army today we have a large number of crack units. They are of the best, where fine discipline prevails as a result of inspiring leadership on the part of the commanding officers But we still need many more of these. The dead wood among them is a hinderance and must be removed.

I want to raise another matter. This is a matter which for us Afrikaans-speaking people, and perhaps also for our English-speaking people opposite, is very close to our hearts. I refer to the spiritual ministration to our national servicemen. A few years ago we had to complain in this House that too little was budgeted for the establishment of church buildings for our servicemen. Today I am grateful to be able to say that the authorities have established what ought to be established. I think that this is the first time in the history of our Defence Force that a clergyman has attained the rank of major-general—I may be making a mistake, but I think this is correct—and the second in command is a clergyman with the rank of brigadier. Sir, at this point I would like to congratulate Dr. Van Zyl and the Rev. Dirkie van der Walt, who, together with their ecclesiastical colleagues in the Defence Force have done very fine work, on these appointments and promotions. Sir, the promotion of various other clergymen to staff officers in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, with the rank of colonel, is an indication of the importance of the clergyman in the Defence Force of today. Sir, throughout the military history of South Africa, the clergyman, the minister of religion who accompanied the commando, has always given a great deal of inspiration in silence. We have this again today: we have the Sarel Cilliers’s and the Father Kestels with us on commandos and our regiments in the field right up to the border. I want to pay tribute to the work of these clergymen in the field. They have a difficult task, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Cradock, among others. Sometimes— and perhaps I myself am also guilty of this—in dealing with national servicemen in our constituencies who have gone off the rails, we also want to make use of these clergymen in the field for social work. I think that we should remind ourselves that the task of these people is without doubt primarily concerned with evangelization and the preaching of the word of God among the thousands of servicemen in our country, and nothing else. These clergymen in the field may not become civil servants, Although we as a State and a community pay them, instead of their congregations. This is perhaps a difficult task because the independence and freedom of the church, whatever church it may be—and now I am not referring to the Jehovahs—must be maintained within the human supremacy of the Defence Force organization, otherwise we would be deviating from our true Christian principles. I must say here that these clergymen in the field do their work well and that our parents and our military trainees may profitably take note of this work with a greater degree of gratitude. [Time expired.]

Sir, I should like to make just a few remarks about what was said by the hon. member for Cradock. I want to say that I share his concern about the unfortunate young men who come to the Army and who are addicted to drugs. I also share his appreciation of what the Army is doing for these unfortunate people to rehabilitate them. Sir, with regard to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria District, my member of Parliament, I must say that I am always disappointed in his speeches. I want to give him notice now that I will not vote for him again.

He can do without your vote.

You must beware of Harry Schwarz.

All I can say about his speech is that in a way he supports what I am about to say now.

Intelligent anticipation.

When I spoke just now, I suggested that the whole of the training scheme of the national servicemen should be reviewed with a view to shortening the period. I want to say that making war today is not child’s play; it is a highly specialized business with highly complicated and sophisticated weapons. We have learned to our cost over the last couple of weeks from what has happened on our borders that our enemies are today better trained and better armed and better led than they were in the past. We must take cognizance of that fact and meet them with equally well-trained and well-armed people. In the past, Sir, as you know, South Africa has depended to a very large extent for its defence on the Citizen Force. I do not think that we can rely on the Citizen Force as we did in the past, and when I say that I do not want anybody to suggest that I am running down the Citizen Force; I am not doing so. They are doing very good work, but with the time at their disposal they cannot be trained as well as they should be to meet this threat. You might ask me what the answer is. I think in a way the Defence Force is already applying the answer in the S.A. Air Force where you have a very strong Permanent Force element backed up by Citizen Force units. This brings me back to the idea that I have been propagating in this House over a long time, and that is that our Defence Force should be so constituted that it embraces a very strong Permanent Force element, a highly trained element, which is flexible and mobile and which can be used at short notice for the necessary operations which present themselves from day to day. In the past we have called this the “composite brigade”. However, I do not care what it is called. I am pleading for a Permanent Force formation, the composition of which must be left to the High Command and which is there, ready and equipped and trained to do the job. I know the Minister has told us in the past that we have very many vacancies in the Permanent Force which cannot be filled. The position is so serious that we will have to find ways and means, and if necessary we will have to pay for it. Our security depends on it and I think it is most essential that such a formation should be called into being which can be backed up by Citizen Force units in their very difficult task. The difficulty in the Permanent Force today is that very many people, highly trained people, trained by the Permanent Force, leave the Permanent Force because they can do so much better outside. I do not think we should allow that to happen. I think that once a man, especially a technician, has been trained in the Defence Force the conditions of service should be such that he will not want to leave. To achieve that we will simply have to foot the bill and pay for it. Our whole security and our future depends on that.

Now I would just like to raise with the Minister one matter of detail, and that is the question of the short-service officers in the S.A. Air Force. These people are necessary. They are employed under the same conditions as Permanent Force people except that they get a gratuity at the end of three or four years. If they are willing and there are vacancies, they can be taken on for further periods. The point I want to make is that when these people are injured or killed on duty they are at a grave disadvantage compared with the Permanent Force people. I know of a case, and other members in this House know of cases, where people have been killed on duty. I know of one case where a married man, highly qualified and very fit and healthy, with a wife and three children, was killed and had to be compensated by the Workmans’ Compensation Fund. That man got a gratuity of, I think, R300 and his widow a pension of R75 a month, as laid down by the law. If that man had been a Permanent Force man, his widow would have had a gratuity of almost R4 000 and a pension of R118 a month. I think these fellows deserve better. I think they should be better treated and some way should be found whereby they are covered in case of accidents and where their families will not have to subsist on charity. I commend to the Minister to have this matter examined to see whether no better deal can be evolved for these people.

There is one other point. I received a reply this morning from the hon. the Minister about the wages paid to Bantu labourers in the various commands. I find that the wages differ very largely between some commands. For instance, in the Western Cape Command at Saldanha, we find that a labourer can earn R1 080 per year, but in a place like Ellisras in the Northern Transvaal he can only earn R276. It seems to me that this is not good enough. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why there is this big difference in the pay packets of these people.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon. member for North Rand except to say that there will be no need for him to vote for the hon. member for Pretoria District again. What is going to happen is that we are going to take leave of the hon. member for North Rand before the next election, because it seems to me as though the Young Turks up there are making things difficult for him.

I should like to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Durban Point. I think the hon. member for Durban Point said and did something very reprehensible this afternoon. He made a personal attack on the hon. the Minister. I think he offended him personally. I think he owes the hon. the Minister an apology. He referred to the accident in which national servicemen died. He gave a dramatic display which really leads nowhere. He was aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister had made a statement that was published in the Press. The hon. member made no comment or statement, or did he react to the hon. the Minister’s statement. Now he comes along, however, in a typically dramatic way—potatoes and bread—to play to the galleries this afternoon. He launched an attack on the hon. the Minister instead of having reacted at the time and having conducted himself like a gentleman, as we could expect him to have done as shadow minister. I think the hon. member for Durban Point owes the hon. the Minister an apology. We demand it of him. If he has any decency, I think he ought to do so.

What about the rest of the matter?

You take the next turn to speak, Vause.

I should like to dwell on two matters for a moment. In the first place I should like to express a word of thanks, appreciation and congratulations to the hon. the Minister for his far-sightedness and timely action in respect of the needs for civil defence as far as, inter alia, the establishment and maintenance of standard fire brigade services by local authorities in South Africa and South-West Africa are concerned. I shall say why I am saying thank you and why I appreciate this. Many of our people have been worried for years, and questions like the following have came to our minds: Can our fire brigade services hold their own against disasters and riots? Does the organization and control of these services have the best and soundest possible basis? Are these services fully manned and equipped? And is there proper planning in the country’s interests? I am stating that those are questions that were in many people’s minds years ago about our fire brigade services in South Africa. That is why this Government, in the person of this hon. Minister, already had investigations carried out years ago and a survey made of the efficiency of the fire brigade and emergency services of South Africa by the Civil Defence Division in co-operation with the South African Fire Services Institute. As a result of this survey it was found, inter alia, that in the 50 local authority areas that are the most densely populated, there were only four that complied with the minimum peacetime fire brigade requirements of the South African Bureau of Standards’ practical code for public safety, while 16 had no fire brigade services whatsoever and the remaining 30 had extremely inadequate services. That was the situation years ago, after this survey had been conducted. That is why we are grateful, and why I am that this Government and the Minister took timely action and intervened with investigations and planning so that progress could be made. On several occasions this Government has also granted extensive financial support to numerous local authorities so that they could obtain standard equipment. That is why we are also grateful to know that a committee of experts has again been appointed that will continue to expand these services further, to do thorough research and to ensure that in the sphere of fire brigade services, South Africa will also be ready for any assistance that must be granted.

There is a second matter I quickly want to dwell on. The hon. the Minister said on a certain occasion (translation)—

Sir, those were very strong and true words. May I add in all humility that it is essential for every South African to have a clear philosophy in respect of the challenges and dangers which are also being created for South Africa by developments in the international sphere. That is why we are engaged, in our Defence Force, in citizenship training and that is why we are engaged, in our schools, in giving lessons in viability. It is important for every member of the Defence Force and every boy and girl to develop, by means of citizenship training and viability programmes, adequate spiritual resistance and a positive spirit of patriotism.

I just want to make a request to the hon. the Minister in passing, i.e. whether he would not consider again introducing the cadet system into our schools as we had it in the past? I do not have to motivate my request. I think the cadet organization has meant a tremendous amount to our young boys through the years. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to review this matter and give us an answer. I know and believe he is going to tell us that he will give it serious consideration; this cadet organization has irrefutable benefits, particularly as far as the discipline of our young boys and the learning of defence techniques, the handling of war material, etc., is concerned. It has always been an ideal of mine that our girls at school should also be given the opportunity to acquaint themselves with fire-arms at times and to handle them, to acquaint themselves with self-defence and, as in the youth viability programme, with first aid. I have also wondered whether we could not do this for our girls. I want to repeat that citizenship training and viability programmes are very important, but it is also important for every soldier, young and old, to discover, by means of his viability training, what a well-known strategist said, i.e.—

Sir, that is the chief task of citizenship training and the viability programmes at our schools. That is not politics; it is a task that is being carried out in the interests of South Africa so that our young people will know, from an early age, that they have a task to carry out in this country, the task of being inspired as far as the defence of their country is concerned, and thus to be willing to do their duty.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on the hon. member for Worcester’s argument, because I think the hon. the Minister will, in fact, deal with that matter. I should like to address myself to the hon. the Minister, specifically in connection with the matter which the hon. member for Durban Point broached here, i.e. that there should be more liaison with the Opposition in connection with defence. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is a matter we have already spoken about in the past, and I know what the hon. the Minister’s objections are. I should like the hon. the Minister to understand that we are doing this in all sincerity and in all honesty, also with a desire to serve the interests of our country as we believe they would be served if we could be incorporated in such a joint liaison. It is quite true what the hon. the Minister says, i.e. that it is the executive authority’s duty to look to the defence of the country. That is so. But we feel it to be such a tremendously important matter in South Africa that it does not only affect certain people or certain groups of people. We do not have a permanent type of fighting elite in South Africa. We have a Force that involves everyone in South Africa, and if there were to be a confrontation in South Africa today, it would not only be professional soldiers, but also the ordinary citizens of the country who would be involved in that. I therefore believe that it is also our right, i.e. that of all facets and groups in the country, to be fully informed of what is going on in the Defence Force. The interests of everyone of us are involved to the utmost extent. I believe that we not only have the right to get all information, but that we also have the right to say how we feel in connection with what is going on within the Defence Force. We must be able to say that things could be different and have the right to express criticism. I do not think the hon. the Minister can say that there is any department which is above criticism. It is not ill-meant criticism. It is not destructive criticism, it is positive criticism in cases where we feel there is room for improvement. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that there is that measure of improvement in any department. We feel that we can make a positive contribution in that connection. What we need in South Africa today is an effective, inspired Defence Force. This is indispensable to the survival of all race groups in South Africa. In the Defence Force we must, in all respects, gain the interest and co-operation of the privates, in particular, but also of all the other ranks, of course. They must have confidence in the organization as a whole. I think this is a big task to carry out, because here we are not dealing with people who have themselves said they want to belong to the Defence Force. We are dealing with people who have been put into the Defence Force as part and parcel of their South African citizenship. Therefore it is a big task to obtain the co-operation of all these people.

I believe that we are succeeding in this to a large extent, but I also believe that we can do much better. I have previously advocated realism in training, and I believe this to be one of the biggest things that could happen, i.e. to really stimulate the interest of the ordinary private in the Defence Force in what he is engaged in doing. He must not feel that he is there simply because he must be there. “We are here because we are here,” is a song that many of them sing because they do not feel involvement in what is going on there. I want to elaborate on this still further. The best form of realism in training is, of course, manoeuvres. This can be very effective, but for some or other reason that is not clear to me, this does not always happen when manoeuvres are held. Without inquiring I have received complaints from all quarters about the latest extensive manoeuvres held at Potchefstroom. People feel unhappy about that, and unfortunately I have to say that this was also my experience when I was there. Some of the complaints are that the men feel that proper use is not being made of their time and that it is not worth the trouble. For example, I have heard things to the effect that in the last manoeuvres, held at Potchefstroom last year, the Air Force bombarded its own troops—in a mock bombardment, of course. This happens quite frequently. We heard of communication between the front-line troops and the rearguard troops breaking down.

That can happen, man !

Of course it can happen, but it should not happen. One can understand that it may happen when troops are under direct fire. Communications can, of course, be blown asunder at certain times. But why should it happen in peacetime when manoeuvres are being engaged in and everything ought to go perfectly? If things cannot go perfectly, how are they ever going to do so in time of war? That is not good enough! How many times has it not happened to me—and this time it apparently happened several times —that men are told that a particular koppie must be attacked. Then the whole assault procedure is followed, ammunition is discharged, and when they get to the top an inspector comes running along and says: “No, sorry, the place you should have attacked is two miles to that side.”

It simply does not happen in such an attack.

Of course it happens ! Go there yourself first and have a look.

That is gossip.

Gossip? You have never been in the Army, that is your trouble. This kind of thing ought not to happen in peacetime where there is no real enemy interference in the communications system. It results in an unnecessary repetition of exercises that have to be done, because now the men have to go back and carry out the whole exercise again. The men then immediately say: “Look, I am just here to be shoved around from one place to another. That is all I am doing here.” Immediately they lose interest. It is an interesting experience for any company to be placed in a war situation, even if it is imaginary. The troops then have to attack something, they are drawn up in a proper formation and they have ammunition which they can discharge. The idea of realsim is there, and immediately one has the desired interest, because the situation is adventurous; something is happening. But immediately one has this type of thing, to which I have just referred, one breaks the soldier’s spirit and morale; his interest is gone and the whole manoeuvre is merely a process that must be endured as far as he is concerned. That is all.

Corporal Stephens will fix them.

Nevertheless these manoeuvres received the praise of the highest ranking officers after their conclusion. I do not know what the main purpose of the manoeuvres was, and I do not know in which respects they were successful or not. I must say that it does not matter whether the higher ranking officers think it was successful. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would be able to explain to me why it was regarded as a successful exercise. It does not matter, however, but we must bear in mind what the feelings of the ordinary privates are, because it is their morale which is of the utmost importance. [Interjection.] The hon. member may laugh about that. He knows nothing, of course, of morale in the Army. It does not matter to him. I want to see how any officer in an army can make any progress if the morale of his men is not high. I should like to see how he could risk a battle in any war without it. That is why I am saying that we must be interested in the impressions of the men on that manoeuvre. Their impression is that it was hopeless. Their impression was not one of success, but one of frustration. They felt it to have been a waste of time and energy. They felt that the inconvenience they suffered was not worth the trouble and their morale was subsequently low. If it had been successful …

Who were they?

The men.

Which men.

If an exercise has been successful, I think it should be explained to them, after such an exercise, why it was successful. Prior to the exercise it should be explained to them what the whole exercise is all about. I feel there is a lack of communication between the people who organize these exercises and the people who must carry them out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to share the excitement of the hon. member here on my right. I should like to sail into calmer waters. I would like to express a word of thanks and deep appreciation towards the hon. the Minister of Defence and his department. We are living in an age of materialism and in an age where man is to an ever-increasing extent believing in himself and in his own creation and in his own ability. That is fine, that is how it should be. In fact, it is an instruction. But it is secondary. We may never lose sight of the fact that there is something basic which is much deeper than that. For that reason I found it especially encouraging when I opened this White Paper by the hon. the Minister and his department and read the preface to it. There I see that these people whom we believe are hardened people and people who are busy with a formidable struggle, also—and I believe it happens often—draw from the deeper source. I refer to the preface to this White Paper in which a quotation from Nehemia 4, verse 16, appears as follows—

These words were spoken by Nehemia and it is recorded in the Book of the same name in the Old Testament. I read a little further in this Book of the Bible and found that Nehemia also spoke the following words to his people. In Nehemia, 4, verse 20 he told his people—

I read on, and in chapter 8, verse 10, I found the following words—

We have voted approximately R500 million for our defence. That is fine, that is a good thing. I say that it could be even more and I would support the hon. the Minister if he said it should be more. But I want to say that if we continue without this deeper reassurance and this greater source of strength, it will all be in vain.

I want to express a second word of thanks and I do this at the request of my better half. Yesterday my wife was one of the fortunate ladies who visited the Civil Defence College at George. When I got home last night, she was so impressed by what she had seen there, that she could not stop talking about the lasting impression it had made on her. It is good and it is right that our daughters should also receive instruction enabling them to be prepared for the day when our country needs them. We hope that that day may never come, but it may happen. It is good to know that our daughters, through the courses which they take there, are taught to be basically feminine and that that attribute is not lost in the overall presentation of this course, but that it is strongly accentuated, developed and brought to the fore. Therefore it is a pleasure to present to hon. members the various fields which are covered at this fine institution. The training takes place to prepare the young lady intellectually, spiritually and physically against threats against her country, especially in order to develop qualities of leadership which will enable her to take the lead in her community in a time of emergency or disaster. Such times may occur during a period of peace but also in time of war. They are taught, inter alia, to handle vehicles. In this manner the young girl is led to maturity by preparing her in this way in all fields for later life. They are taught squad drill, self-defence, with as well as without arms, and the driving and maintenance of vehicles. The students are familiarized with the working and repair of vehicles, and they receive tuition to be able to qualify for the driving licence of the South Africa Defence Force. They also receive tuition in health services, including first-aid, basic and home nursing. Adequate provision is made with regard to sport facilities. Provision is made for their leisure time utilization. Then there is also the following, which I find so important: Students are visited by their own parson once a week and they are expected to attend at least one service in their own church every Sunday. Evening prayers are regularly conducted before supper, and provision is also made for personal devotions.

Sir, now that I have expressed this word of thanks I do not think there is any need for me to say that I am doing it on my wife’s behalf only. I think I can say that I am doing it on behalf of all the good ladies of my colleagues on this side of the House. I think I can say that I am doing it on behalf of thousands and thousands of women in the Republic of South Africa. I wonder whether we can confirm and strengthen this word of thanks in any better way than to suggest now that this institution be called “The Elise Botha Institution”, after the wife of our Minister of Defence.

Sir, I am told that 150 young ladies pass out from this institution every year. We are grateful for it and we appreciate it, but I think it is too few. I wonder whether I may ask whether this number cannot be increased to 500 per year in the near future. In addition to that I want to say that the hon. the Minister and his Supreme Command know that in my constituency, Heidelberg, there is that fine institution, the Army Gymnasium where our young men are being trained. To my mind it will be particularly fitting and particularly welcome to these young men as well if a similar institution for young women such as that at George, could be established at Heidelberg. I do not want to interfere in the rich and the fine tradition of our militarists. Perhaps they believe that men and women should be trained separately. But I would like to say that there is such a thing as the law of life and the law of nature. Sir, I would like to tell you what it would mean to my young men at Heidelberg if they could have something to look at, a pretty girl to look at, and if they could have the opportunity to say charming things to a pretty girl, with a twinkle in the eye. It will mean much to them and to the girls.

Sir, the opportunity is there. I think that these young people are also students. They are also students like the young people at our universities, where our young men and young girls are in contact with one another from time to time and chat to one another. I think that it is only right that our young people in the Army should also be given the opportunity to make the acquaintance of members of the opposite sex. I want to tell you, Sir, that we have those beautiful grounds at Heidelberg. They are among the most beautiful. The facilities there are of the very best. However, I do not think that it can be arranged so that there will be room for such a civil defence college for girls as well. But I want to say that the grounds are large enough to enable it to be built there. I want to tell the Minister: If the grounds are not used for that purpose, I want to make the offer on behalf of the municipality and on behalf of the people of Heidelberg today that Heidelberg will do and give everything they possibly can to make it possible to have such a division for our young women established at Heidelberg. Therefore I seriously request the hon. the Minister and the Supreme Command to consider, with the further development of these activities, preparing our young women in larger numbers. I also make a very serious request that a part of this development, if it takes place, should take place at the town of Heidelberg.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention now to reply in detail to what has been said up to now. I thank hon. members who have participated in the debate up to now for the spirit in which they did so, and for the positive contribution that has been made. However, I believe that I should furnish this House with information which may facilitate the discussion. I shall reply to the individual speeches by hon. members at a later stage.

A few hon. members referred to the system of national service. Let me say at once, Sir, that I have always taken the view, since the introduction of the system of national service, that we are not irrevocably committed to that particular form of national service. I have said repeatedly in this House that if improvements can be made we shall do so. I have always maintained, however, that the principle of national service should be retained at all times because it is not only in the military interests of South Africa; it is also of constructive value to the citizenry as such. It is a factor which contributes to spiritual preparedness and physical preparedness, in more than just the military sense. But I have told hon. members in this House, and the hon. member for Durban Point in particular, that I invite them to come forward with proposals for the improvement of the system of national service, if they want to submit such proposals. Except for the general remarks made here by the hon. member from time to time, he has never once gone further and submitted specific proposals to us.

I have.

No, wait a moment. Give me a chance now; I gave you a chance to speak. You can reply to this. The result is that, after having gained some years of experience, we have said that we can now, with the knowledge available to us, proceed to conduct a departmental investigation to ascertain to what extent there can be a revision of the whole system of national service. We have selected some of our ablest officers and given them this task of conducting a departmental investigation. But this does not mean that by conducting a departmental investigation we are going to deny hon. members the right of participating in the final decision. Hon. members know, and this applies to the hon. member for Durban Point as well, that each time when we have amended the system of national service—and this has been done several times—the hon. members of the Opposition have been enabled to participate by way of a Select Committee. If the investigations by this departmental committee lead to legislation being approved in principle by the Government, then it follows that I shall approach hon. members and again submit those proposals for their investigation in a Select Committee. From the nature of the case, after all, this has always been the practice up to now. But I am prepared to go further. I am prepared to tell the hon. member now that as soon as the report is available to me in full— and it is not yet; we said in the White Paper that we had ordered such an investigation and that the investigation was almost concluded—I am prepared to have consultations regarding those proposals, not only with members on this side of the House, but with hon. members on that side as well, before having even draft legislation drawn up. It has always been the custom for us to have consultations. With that in view I now want to explain to hon. members in broad outline, for the sake of the discussion—I am not committing myself to this— the lines along which this committee is thinking. We are not committed to this; the Government has not yet given attention to this, and I myself have not come to a decision on the matter, but I am doing this to afford hon. members an opportunity of responding. I must say that this committee has done excellent work. The committee has gone out of its way to interview people and I think they have succeeded in obtaining the necessary information by means of their interviews. The guidelines will be more or less as follows—

1. (a) That the full initial training period of twelve months, as already prescribed by the Defence Act, be made applicable to all national servicemen, including commandos, as from 1974.

I have always taken the view that in the world in which we are living and in which the enemies of South Africa and the terrorists in particular are receiving better and better training with more and more sophisticated weapons, we cannot shorten that initial training period; it would be foolish—

1. (b) That the further training obligations of all national servicemen be reduced from eight to five training periods, to be 19 days instead of 26 days.

This is a second guideline which they will most probably submit to me, but I first have to make a proper study of the motivation before I can say whether I shall accept it—

1. (c) That over and above the aforementioned, special provision be made for those who wish to complete their training obligations in one continuous training period, i.e. to enable such national servicemen to voluntarily extend their service of 12 months and five further training periods to a continuous training period of either 18 or 24 months. Those who wish to serve for 18 months will have no further Citizen Force or commando training obligations. Those who wish to serve for a period of 24 months will also have no further training obligations, but will be remunerated for their full period of service against Permanent Force salary scales.

For the full two years?

Yes—

1. (d) That Citizen Force and commando training be conducted as from 1974 on a yearly basis, i.e. without intervals. This will mean that national servicemen will be able to complete their training obligations within a period of six years instead of the present ten.

†These are the proposals in broad outline. I am not committed to them yet; I cannot say at this stage that I have properly studied the report, and I will have to discuss it with the senior officers in the Defence Force. Secondly, I will have to take the matter to the Cabinet, of course, but I am prepared to consult with hon. members on these lines and, if necessary, to come along with legislation in this regard next year.

May I ask a question? The Minister said five periods instead of eight. That is the position for officers. For men it is three camps of 26 days at the moment. What is the provision there?

I have said the proposal as I have it here will be that the Citizen Force and commando training will be conducted as from 1974 on a yearly basis, in other words, without intervals. Today you, have it with intervals. This will mean that the national servicemen will be able to complete their training obligations in a period of six months and their annual training period over six years.

And item (b)7

This envisages that the further training obligations of all national servicemen be reduced from eight to five training periods also. It will be 90 days instead of 26 days. I have not had the opportunity to study the report yet. It has not been submitted to me yet. This is a summary of the main recommendations. I have had discussions on it but I am not prepared to say that I can commit myself today on it. I have only given hon. members this information to enable them, if they so wish, to express their views.

*The hon. member for Durban Point raised a second matter to which I must refer this afternoon before it is publicized outside this House, and that was how incredibly callous this department allegedly was. The hon. member referred to a thick file he has available to him which deals with the lives and the deaths of a number of boys in tragic accidents. I am sorry that the hon. member did this. The hon. member is usually reasonable in his representations and I must say that over the years he and I have got on fairly well as far as matters of defence are concerned. I am sorry that the hon. member used the death of a number of boys to pick up a file this afternoon with a dramatic gesture and to create the impression that he had to fight a hard battle before he could move this callous department. But surely this is not true. [Interjections.] The hon. member has had his say. The facts are that when the hon. member brought this matter to my notice, I responded at once by saying that I would have the complaints indicated by the hon. member investigated and that I would give my personal attention to them. I have the correspondence here. After the investigation had been conducted, I replied to the hon. member in a letter which I have here in front of me.

†It was on these questions: A visit by the responsible officer to the next of kin; follow-up visits; return of personal possessions; submission of wills; outstanding pay; death certificates; the inquiry of inquest findings; compensation and/or pension rights; follow-up written inquiries. That is what the letter dealt with. I say—

*Did the hon. member after this letter write a letter to me to say that he took exception to the actions of the department?

Yes.

Did the hon. member act in that spirit in which he acted here this afternoon and said that he could not possibly go on? No, what the hon. member did was to make a statement. He made a long statement to the Sunday Express. Fortunately the Sunday Express behaved decently. The Sunday Express said that they wanted to publish the truth. The statement by Mr. Vause Raw was submitted to me and I was asked to reply to it point by point. Sir, we drew up an official reply which appeared in the Sunday Express a week after the hon. member’s statement. Has the hon. member subsequently said in public that he found fault with that statement? Has he replied to our view point by point in the Sunday Express? No! Then he decided that he should wait until the Vote came up for discussion. For months the interests of these dead boys could be left to one side; he had to make a pleasant, peaceable speech in the House of Assembly and at the end of his speech he had to create the impression that this was a callous department. Let me say that I am not claiming the kudos for myself. I also say, however, that I know of few organizations that take as much trouble as the South African Defence Force does to be of assistance when there is loss of life. I think it was an unfair attack that was made by the hon. member. One or two points were not clear and I gave the department decisions in regard to these. The department accepted those decisions and they are being carried out today. Is this the sort of matter we should use to create the impression across the floor of this House that the Defence Force is callous? If I wanted to use the hon. member’s tactics I could read letters to him which the parents of the boys concerned wrote to express the greatest appreciation for what they received from us. I have those letters, but I do not intend to bandy their names about in this House. My department and I try to deal with those cases to the best of our ability.

Does the hon. member know that when a boy is killed in an accident in the Defence Force, I am personally informed of it by telephone and respond to it within an hour? This is known throughout the country. However, this now becomes one of the hon. member’s complaints on the grounds of which he should now be given a share in the matter. I shall leave it at that.

May I ask a question?

Yes, you may do so now, for I want to go on to another point.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether I did not, in reply to his letter dated 3rd October, to which he referred, write to him on 3rd November—

and say that I had to deal with the matter in public before giving it to the Press?

Yes, and what did the hon. member do then? Then he gave information in his statement to the Sunday Express which was not correct. [Interjections.] If he wants to debate the subject we can do so. However, I repudiated it in the Sunday Express by giving the facts. No, the hon. member will lose if he takes this matter further, because I shall then have to read to him the letters written by the parents of those boys and I shall have to produce other letters as well. I had hoped that when people were struck by such a tragedy and when on the part of the department everything was done under difficult circumstances to visit those persons, it would not be made a point for debate. I shall leave it at that.

I now come to the other important matter.

†The hon. member raised the question of a share in the information and a share in consultation on the more secret aspects of defence because he is not satisfied with the information which we provide in the White Paper and he is not satisfied with, as he called it, the contact that exists on matters of major importance.

The hon. member was also supported by the hon. member for Florida whose speech, by the way, especially the second part, was really silly. I do not know why the hon. member raised those points. The whole exercise at Potchefstroom was under the supervision of senior officers of the Defence Force and, as a matter of fact, attended by the present Chief of the Defence Force himself. My information is quite the opposite to what the hon. member had to say here. I think he made a perfect fool of himself because he tried to create the idea that the Defence Force was not able to judge and control exercises like these.

But it is the impression of the troops.

It is the impression of one or two troops who do not know their minds. The present Chief of the Defence Force informed me after his visit there that he was highly satisfied with the whole performance.

Perhaps he applied different standards.

Order!

But whose advice am I now to take—that of the Chief of the Defence Force or that of the hon. member for Florida? His is just a bit of gossip, of course, we should not raise this kind of foolishness here.

I now want to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Durban Point in which he was supported by the hon. member for Florida and partially also supported by the hon. member for North Rand. Let me say in the first instance that in principle I think that it is necessary to provide members of Parliament with as much information on military matters as possible. In the second instance I think it is necessary not only to provide members of the Government side but also members of the official Opposition as long as we are united on the broad policy in connection with defence, as we are. I accept those principles.

I should also like to point out that in the past I went out of my way to make it possible for members to acquire that information. I did not only refer proposed legislation to Select Committees, but I took a step further. I called in hon. members of the Opposition; I took the initiative. I invited the hon. member for North Rand and the hon. member for Durban Point not merely to accompany me on tours, tours about which you usually do not publish much. They accompanied me. I even went further. I invited the hon. members to my office and I informed them on rather delicate matters.

I said that that has broken down.

What is more, I gave information to members of Parliament, to leaders of industry in South Africa and to professional leaders who were invited specially for that purpose from time to time. I furnished them with information on more than one occasion. Only this year I furnished the hon. member for Durban Point with information again. I walked over to him and gave him information on certain matters.

In fairness, I said that we did have it in the past.

Wait a minute. I want to say this afternoon that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to nominate someone and give me the assurance that that person will not use information given to him by me for any party-political purposes, I am prepared to arrange a meeting with that person from time to time, and to provide him with as much information as does not conflict with the oath I took as a Minister. But there is certain information that I have at my disposal as Minister of Defence which I can only share with the State Security Council, and I am unable to release that information. Hon. members will surely realize that. But if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to designate a responsible person I would be prepared, in so far as this did not conflict with the oath I have taken as a Minister, to give that person information from time to time, bearing in mind the proviso I have stated. But I cannot allow a body to come into being, a parliamentary body or one in the form of an outside committee, an extra-parliamentary body, which deals with the organization of the Defence Force. There is only one Minister of Defence and only one senior officer at the head of the Defence Force. That command structure must be maintained. Those two persons owe responsibility to the State Security Council, of which the Prime Minister is the chairman. I am prepared to give the State Security Council all the information as far as defence matters are concerned. In fact, the Prime Minister knows about everything. But, Sir, I cannot give information to other bodies and persons, a state of affairs that would clash with the responsibility I carry and with the oath I took as Minister.

But there is another aspect I want to deal with. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here, because I asked him to be here during the discussion of the Defence Vote. I asked him by way of a letter.

He was here.

He was here this afternoon. The hon. member for Durban Point says we must have greater contact with each other as far as defence information is concerned. I agree with him. The Defence Force consists of members of the Opposition party and those of the Government Party. There are too few of each in this country to defend South Africa on their own. That is why they must stand together. But I am asking this afternoon: Since the hon. member for Durban Point was lodging so strong a plea and was supported by the hon. members for North Rand, Florida and also certain other members who are still to follow them, how do they explain the conduct of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? They want a joint committee. Will the hon. member for Beduidenhout be allowed to do with that joint committee what he is doing with the Schlebusch Commission, i.e. to bring under suspicion in public every effort to reach unanimity about internal security? Then in the light of the standpoint which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout adopts in respect of the Schlebusch Commission, the hon. member asks me to share information as far as defence matters are concerned, matters which affect the life and death of this country? But, Sir, I shall go further. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I appreciate the fact that he said here this afternoon that the amounts being spent in the Defence Budget are justified. On a later occasion in this debate I shall be saying more about that. I want to furnish more information about that. But I want to ask him: Does he know of the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made here, which compelled the hon. the Minister of Finance to respond to it? I have the Hansard report here. He said—

He does not ask how this is made up before making these allegations. No, indeed, he just goes on in his old superficial, cheap fashion, as is typical of him—

Sir, he then continues—

What a babe in the wood! Once we have created a heaven on earth for all our people here according to our pattern, powerful Russia and China, with all their satellites, will say: “Fine South Africans! You have now implemented your policy in such a way that your people are happy and therefore we shall now no longer want to destroy your innocent little mites.” Surely that is not what it is all about, Sir. Surely, that is not what threats in the military sphere are all about. Surely, it is a matter of great strategic objectives in the world. Surely it is a matter of the control of certain points on the globe, the control of certain sea routes, of springboards and bridges to other places. It is a matter of the control of the Persian Gulf and the sea route round the Cape. It is a matter of the control of a stable element on the southern point of Africa. The highly esteemed gentleman comes along and acts as if our Defence budget should actually be employed to ensure security in South Africa by force. That is surely nonsense. After all, we are not arming ourselves against our Black or Coloured people—we are arming ourselves against the forces that are being built up against us under the guidance of Russia, China and their satellites. Now the Opposition are asking me to take them into my confidence, which I am prepared to do with responsible people. But I am now saying to the Opposition this afternoon: I shall do so on condition that they shut the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s mouth and silence him. If they do not have the courage to silence him, there is no co-operation. We cannot tolerate this kind of two-faced policy in South Africa, not when it comes to security matters. I am prepared to take hon. members with me—in fact, I advocate it. I am prepared to furnish the information to the hon. member for Durban Point, if he is the person, to the hon. member for North Rand, if he is the person, to the hon. member for Green Point —I am mentioning responsible members— or to the hon. member for South Coast, who has already come to talk to me about defence matters. Let me say that I have the utmost confidence in him. I do not always agree with him, but I have the utmost confidence in his integrity. But, Sir, I have no confidence in the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because he is an opportunist. He would even use Defence expenditure to give his political coat more colours, and I am saying, Sir, that they must call him to order. This afternoon I am speaking to the hon. member for South Coast, who is a senior member of that party. He is a senior politician in South Africa and I appeal to him to speak to his leader so that they may call the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to order. He is now playing with the security of South Africa. He must be called to order, and I shall have to expose him. I intend to say more about this expenditure on Monday, but let me just say this afternoon that if South Africa should really do what hon. members request of us, i.e. to establish another professional element in the Defence Force in the form of a brigade, we shall not be able to manage with R500 million. I have had many discussions with people from other countries. One can look at Britain today, where their system of national service has been abolished and where professional elements today constitute the Defence Force. It is very efficient and I want to say nothing about that. I speak subject to correction, but I think that in their Defence Budget they are already spending between 65% and 70% on the staff and less than 30% on equipment. We in South Africa must be careful that we do not come to that pass. Our means are limited and we must maintain the correct ratio between staff and equipment. We must be careful not to kill one thing by desiring another that is going to cost us even more. While I am dealing with this point, and I want to conclude with this, I want to say that in the past I adopted the standpoint that I was not essentially opposed to that. The only objection I raised, the hon. member for North Rand will remember, was that I said that it would cost too much to have this done on a brigade basis. It is printed in Hansard, and hon. members may go and read it up, but I am saying its again this afternoon. Other hon. members like the hon. member for Pretoria District, advocated that we should obtain a striking element in the Defence Force. I am not prepared to say more, except that we do in fact have such an element. We have such a full-time element and we are engaged in developing it, but it cannot be established on as large a basis as some hon. members have in mind, i.e. brigade strength, in any case not at this stage. This cannot be done now, unless whoever is Minister of Defence is allowed to obtain annually a fixed percentage of the gross national product and there is planning for a period of five or ten years in the knowledge that that expenditure can be incurred. Then one could establish such an element. But if a frontbencher of the Opposition is already objecting to this amount, how would he carry on if the amount were greater?

What is the present percentage?

About 3%, which is very low. At a later stage in the debate I shall give comparative figures. We can retain our present Permanent Force element by better housing, by more pleasant working conditions and by improving their facilities, which we are doing. If hon. members take a look here at Ysterplaat, they can now see what is being done; and we are doing this from base to base. We have done a great deal at Simonstown, as the hon. member knows, not enough yet, of course, but if we were to do enough we would surely have heaven on earth and then the hon. member and I would no longer be necessary. If we could do that, and have a portion of the vacancies filled, if we could employ the Coloureds in those posts for which they are suitable, if we could establish the Indian Service Battalion and if we could use more women in certain posts in the Defence Force, such as in the signals division and in other work, I think we would, to a large extent, be getting somewhere with our manpower problems. But then we must be prepared to pay for Defence. When people judge Defence Budgets they have a great deal to say about the costs that mount up annually, but if a country is unprepared, that poor Minister gets it in the neck. If the crisis comes and one is unprepared, we have what happened to a predecessor of mine in this House, something that was not his fault, but he did not get the money at the time. I am speaking of the late Mr. Pirow. Mr. Pirow did not get the money, so he could not give South Africa a Defence Force. With the best officers at his disposal he could not do so. When the crisis came, and there was no Defence Force, Mr. Pirow was the victim.

He did not spend the money that was available.

No, he did not have the money to spend; it was not given to him. He did the planning, because aircraft that he had ordered arrived long after he had ceased to be Minister. Now we get an increase of R124 million or R125 million —and this is not all direct expenditure. I shall deal with that later. It has to do, inter alia, with capital expenditure whereby we shall be able to improve certain goods which we can then sell again, and it also has to do with a few million rand that is being placed on the special Defence Account, specifically to prevent our having to ask for large additional amounts every year. It does not help to complain about Defence expenditure and to curse when the crisis comes. It is better to make ordered preparations in advance, and then a person like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must be quickly silenced, before his irresponsibility proves contagious to the rest of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to attempt to reply to some of the points made by the hon. the Minister as I feel sure that the hon. member for Durban Point and the other hon. member concerned will reply at a suitable time. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I do not think that we on this side have ever objected to any of the Defence Budgets that he or his predecessors have put before this House. The hon. the Minister is a very experienced politician. I do not think he is anybody’s fool. Therefore, I do not know whether he intentionally misunderstood what we wanted when we requested greater liaison between the parties, because we are very concerned about this very large sum of money that is being spent by Defence and we feel that, notwithstanding what is displayed to us in way of estimates and White Paper we as an Opposition are entitled to more information in depth. We do not want to know the secrets of the Army, or anything like that, but, as I have said, we do feel that we are entitled to more information in depth, information which I do not think should be passed over the floor of this House. I think that the Government, and particularly the hon. the Minister, is accepting too great a responsibility. The hon. the Minister must never forget that when we talk about South Africa and the Government of South Africa, we are not talking about the Nationalist Party or the party in power, but this whole Parliament. We are jointly responsible for what happens and I think that we on this side are entitled to a little bit more information, under the circumstances, than we are getting at the present moment. We appreciate what the hon. the Minister and his department has done; we have been on conducted tours and have seen certain things, with some of which we were impressed. However, I can tell him that with others we were not impressed. I do not think that this is the place or time to discuss those that we were not impressed with. I think it would be wrong to do that. When the late Mr. Gay, the former member for Simonstown, made a plea for such a committee while he was here, it was also turned down. I think that that is wrong and that the hon. the Minister should give this matter further consideration.

I am not going to get involved in the dispute the hon. the Minister has with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am fairly certain that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be able to reply to him.

He will not.

I think he will. To come back to this Budget, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I have read the White Paper and think that, in the preface to the White Paper, the hon. the Minister makes some very pertinent remarks. There are some startling remarks in fact but I think that the hon. the Minister would stand by anything he has said here. In the first paragraph he draws attention to the state of conditions that exist in respect of South Africa and the rest of the world. Further on, the first paragraph on page 2 says:

I think that in that respect we of the Opposition agree entirely. The isolation of South Africa is one of the things we are very worried about. This is the type of thing we would like to know more about. The final paragraph of this report is very true. If I may read it to the hon. the Minister—

That, I should say, is the guts of the whole matter. You cannot achieve that state of affairs if you do not treat the Opposition with greater confidence. In matters of defence, we are both involved. I know that the hon. the Minister is concerned that we may as an opposition criticize the Government if they come with a larger Budget for defence. We might, that is our duty, but I would say again that it is a tremendous responsibility that he and the Government are accepting. I think that we should have more information.

I would like to say that, as far as the White Paper is concerned, it does not give us everything; it merely gives us an outline. Let me come to the point. We in this country face a very serious situation on our borders. It is all right talking about having an Army to guard your borders, having that Army properly equipped and so on, but that is not the end of the story. Armies do not win wars. We know what happened in Germany and Japan; we know what happened in Vietnam. What we must have is a first-class equipped Army but it does not end there. What the Government must do—and this is its responsibility—is to find a “Kissinger”. As was found in America, we too have to do a little more talking. We have to make more friends. We must break out of the isolation in which we find ourselves in this country. We cannot just live here …

Order! That has nothing to do with the Vote. The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about defence. This is a matter which is very fundamental to defence. The Americans have found that this matter is very fundamental to defence, if you do not mind my saying so.

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall come to the Vote itself.

I think so too.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom will probably not understand it but it is very fundamental indeed. If we are going to carry on in this way we are going to get nowhere at all. It is just as well that the Government should know what we are thinking. I would like to thank the hon. the Minister very much for the letters that he wrote to me and for the explanations he sent me on the questions I asked him last session. I asked a question about the provision for vehicles in the Department of Defence about which I was not very happy. I would like to say that I am still not happy with the situation. In the one question I asked him. I criticized the provision under one subhead for the purchase of vehicles for the Department of Defence while vehicles were also being purchased by the Armaments Board. I received a remarkable reply to this question. The reply was:

Any item that is bought for the Defence Force should be examined by specialists. For example, the British Government has its War Office and nothing is just bought off the shelf as was suggested in the other reply that I received from the hon. the Minister. One does not buy R4 million’s worth of equipment just off the shelf.

But this is standard equipment that we need.

Who decides what standard equipment is?

The Defence Force and the Armaments Board.

No, the Armaments Board does not do it. The hon. the Minister said that they do not do that. I do not want to quote the whole letter but it makes very enlightening reading and one gets very worried about the supply of suitable equipment. The hon. the Minister laughs, but this is no laughing matter because a considerable amount of money is being spent on these items. Right through this letter I have here you find the attitude of just buying things off the shelf that are available. How do you think we can go into war when you buy off the shelf from a local garage? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, each of the United Party speakers said that they would like to have more information on what is going on in the inner circles of the Defence Force. I must say that I have been afraid that we may be saying too much. When one reads this White Paper, one wonders what a foreign power would pay to get hold of this White Paper. How much would we be prepared to pay for such a White Paper on the defence installations of Russia or of China? I think we should be very careful about what we publish. I am not suggesting that things are said here which should not be published. But to say more would be wrong, for I believe that we have already told the Opposition enough. I welcome the idea of the Minister of Defence that when more has to be said, he will disclose it to only one reliable person on that side. I think that this will be a good procedure and I think that it will meet with general approval. I think the Opposition should accept this offer by the hon. the Minister of Defence.

The hon. member for Salt River wanted to make a great issue here of the way materials are purchased. The Defence Force has a very good system for purchasing materials. Certain items are purchased by way of tender, but in respect of other items it is essential for direct purchases to be made.

What do you know about it?

I believe that that procedure is working very well the way it is at the moment.

What do you know about it?

What I have read about it. In the few minutes that are left I do not want to raise the matter I really wanted to discuss, but I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Heidelberg.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.