Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to a few remarks which were made in this House yesterday afternoon and deal with them in brief. In the first place I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point, who spoke about bilingualism in hotels. He made the remark, inter alia, that it was not necessary to use sanctions in order to enforce bilingualism. He did not want to have it done by means of regulations or laws. Sir, I want to make the statement that as far as bilingualism in hotels is concerned, to the hon. member for Durban Point this means English only. If Fedhasa was given more than two years by the Minister to rectify the matter, and they have not managed to do so by this time, then we may justifiably ask the question: Are they in earnest about rectifying this matter? It seems to me that they do not want to do so. Does the hon. member want this embarrassment to continue; does he want it to be never ending? The hon. the Minister has a duty towards both the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people in this country. Equal rights for the languages is laid down as a requirement in our Constitution, and it is the duty and the task of the hon. the Minister to ensure that this is enforced in South Africa if the people do not want to do so themselves.

There were some of the other members, too—I call to mind the hon. member for Von Brandis, for example—who waxed lyrical about how important the United Party considered bilingualism to be. If this is true, I want to ask him: What do you think about bilingualism in Natal? You will recall, Sir, that there was a tremendous fuss in the ranks of the United Party last year when the hon. member for Port Natal did not want to allow bilingualism to be a requirement for candidature of the United Party. The United Party wasted no time in withdrawing that motion of theirs. In other words, once again they are letting English suffice. We can also call to mind a few M.E.C.s in Natal who are not bilingual. How can those hon. members stand up in this House and state that bilingualism is a requirement in the ranks of the United Party? Since we are now dealing with the enforcement of bilingualism by means of regulations, I also want to refer to the traffic regulations in Natal. You will recall, Sir, that a few years ago there was a prominent Afrikaner who had to demand that the regulations should be translated into Afrikaans. We had to get these rights step by step from the English-speaking people, and then they say that it is not necessary for us to enforce bilingualism in hotels.

I also want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Durban Central. Yesterday the hon. member for Ermelo related how some of us Afrikaners were imprisoned without trial during the war years, although innocent. Only after representations had been made, were these people released from prison. In answer to that the hon. member for Durban Point said “shame” by way of interjection. If that is the spirit which prevails among those people, viz. that the imprisonment of innocent Afrikaners is to elicit the response “shame”, then one wonders to what extent it is the intention of these people to allow Afrikaans to have its proper place in this country. One also wonders what goes on in the minds of these people. In the Transvaal the leader of the United Party, Mr. Harry Schwarz, said recently in the Provincial Council that when the Afrikaners were still running around in skins, his people were already civilized and educated. Sir, this is the basic spirit which prevails in the United Party. One can therefore understand why Afrikaners still have to ensure equal treatment being given to the languages in this country.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District also made certain remarks about the matter of restrictions. He said, inter alia, that during the war years there was a state of emergency and that that was why people could be restricted. He went on to say that a state of emergency did not exist at the present time, and that restrictions were consequently unnecessary. Sir, the matter is very simple. In the war years there was no provision for restriction. The Minister at that time obtained his powers as a result of the state of emergency which had been declared. By virtue of that he could restrict people. Today we are not in a state of war, but the communist war is still being waged. The communist war is not being waged against South Africa alone; it is being waged against the whole world. In other words, a state of emergency does in fact prevail throughout the world, as far as the communist war is concerned. Therefore it is essential for the necessary measures to be taken to restrict these dangerous, hostile people where necessary. It is very easy for the hon. member to talk about restrictions and to say that the Afrikaners who were restricted during the war years, were traitors; that is what he called them. In fact he threw the word across the floor of this House and said that the Afrikaners were traitors and that it was for that reason that they were restricted.

The people who were restricted, not the Afrikaners.

I want to point out to the hon. member that those people who were restricted, were often restricted although they were perfectly innocent, as the hon. member for Ermelo also described it. I want to refer to the case of Mr. Stephen Eyssen, who was a dignified member of this House and who, though innocent, was restricted for two years. Not a single point could be proved against him. And then such people are called “traitors”. Sir, I think that it is a shame that that hon. member should be allowed to use such a word across the floor in respect of innocent people who were restricted during those years.

Order! I permitted it because it is permissible. If the hon. member had called someone here in this House a traitor, I would have dealt with him differently.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back …

You only wasted time.

I should like to come back to the Department of Justice and the Department of Prisons. In the Department of Justice, as is the case in various other departments, there are highly specialized people, people who have applied themselves to their studies for long periods in order to fill the posts which they fill today, and this department has a colossal share, together with the Department of Prisons, as well as the Department of Police, in ensuring that our internal security is guaranteed. Sir, it is a well-known fact throughout the world that the administration of justice in South Africa is of a high standard. It is one of our powerful weapons overseas that it has never yet been possible to point a finger at the administration of justice in this country. This much as regards our internal security as well as the high esteem in which our administration of justice is held overseas. Sir, in our courts, when important cases are tried from time to time under the Terrorism Act and the Suppression of Communism Act, we find that people from abroad attend these trials as observers, and even these people have never been able to point any finger at our administration of justice in South Africa. The same goes for our Department of Prisons. Our prisons are in the first place places of safe custody, i.e. places which ensure the protection of the community, but in the second place they are also places of rehabilitation, and our prison service succeeds brilliantly in this task of theirs. It compares favourably with the best in the world. Many of us know that in the past few years various jurists and people from overseas paid us visits to investigate our prison administration. In February, 1969, for example, a certain Mr. Clifford Hynning, a well-known American jurist paid us a visit. Also in 1969 a certain Prof. Van Duisterwinkel from Holland, from the Rijk University of Leyden, paid us a visit and just recently we had another visit from a person who said that our prison administration compared favourably with the best in the world and that it was of the highest quality. Mr. Chairman, we are proud of our Department of Justice and our Department of Prisons, but I think that we should also like to inform our people on South Africa, and therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether he could not consider arranging for radio talks to be given at 20 minutes to seven in the morning on our administration of justice and our prisons in order to inform our people about the various facets of our law and our prisons. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Potgietersrust spent more than half his time drawing red herrings across the floor again over the language question. I can talk as a South African without a drop of English blood in my veins, and to me this puerile talk, which goes on and on without any progress, is a sickening, time-consuming, pointless business. South Africa, since the time of Union, 63 years ago, has been served by Afrikaans-speaking Prime Ministers, and I can say that the non-Afrikaans section of South Africa, in other words, the English-speaking South Africans, have served those leaders and South Africa loyally, and will continue to do that in spite of what hon. members opposite may say. This party stands four-square for bilingualism, and it is no good drawing red herrings across the floor of the House about what people do and what they do not do and reading into words meanings which do not exist. It is disappointing to me that in a debate on such an important department as the Department of Justice, where we could have had a fruitful discussion for the benefit of the State, we have had nothing else but red herrings here over the question of language—63 years after Union. Hon. members opposite, with the exception of one or two, and a few others who have come into the debate as an afterthought, have not got down to the business of discussing this department. The Department of Justice is one of the most important departments, if not the most important department, in this country, because the dignity and standard of civilization of this country is judged by the work done by the Department of Justice. Its ramifications extend from the Appellate Division right down to the most junior magistrates’ courts, the Deeds Office, the State Attorneys, the Attorneys-General and all those other people who help to ensure that we in South Africa can live in a quiet and orderly fashion.

Sir, I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed in the annual report as presented to us here, it has a shiny, glossy cover, and then apart from the first four pages, in which comment is offered on certain difficulties that they experience and on what they are doing in Johannesburg, we have nothing but a plethora of figures without any comment whatsoever.

Can’t you read figures?

I am not going to read through these figures. There is nothing in this report to tell us about the difficulties experienced by the Department of Justice or how well they are progressing in certain directions, or what they intend doing in the future; the report is just a mass of figures and nothing else. Sir, compare this with the report of the Commissioner of Prisons, who gives us both figures and comment, with the result that we know where we stand. The Commissioner of Prisons has given us a report which is intelligent and readable, and that also applies to other departments, and I commend those heads of departments who have gone to the trouble to present reports which are interesting and at the same time full of meat. This report, however, is nothing but a mass of figures. The Justice report gives globular figures with regard to staff; nothing is said here about staff shortages. These globular figures should have been broken down, I suggest, into the various grades so that we could see where the weakness lies and where the strength lies. We might then have been able to make some positive contribution to this debate in regard to the staff position in the department. I am sure that the Minister, who is a reasonable man, will see that this is done in future.

What makes you think he is reasonable?

Sir, we welcome the pay increases which have been granted to the public servants and particularly to the hard-pressed officials of the Department of Justice. Now that they have been granted increase in pay, we also look forward to increased productivity from them. After all, we hear such a lot nowadays from all sources, about increased productivity and I suppose the Government should set the example. One of the factors which militate against greater productivity, I think, is this 5-day week. I know that it has come to stay in certain sectors of commerce, but I would still suggest that the public office in magistrates’ courts should be open on Saturday mornings. This is a thorny problem. I know that there are many people who go down to the nearest police station to register births and deaths there, and I feel that on Saturday mornings these public offices should be open to members of the public, in the same way as banks and other institutions, not to mention stores. I am sure that this would place no undue hardship on the staff. This could be done on the rota system. In the Police, while I was still serving, we had a rota system, and on Saturday mornings there was always a skeleton staff in those offices, which had dealings with the public, to deal with complaints or other matters which required urgent attention. I think this could be done with great benefit to the department itself.

Sir, I want to come back to my complaint about the fact that this report contains almost nothing but figures. One hears of the long delays which take place in disposing of traffic offence cases. Months go by before some cases are finalized. I know that this is not an original suggestion but I would like to make a further plea to the Minister to consider whether it is not possible to have night courts for traffic offences. This would have a salutary effect on the reckless driver and it would help to keep death off the roads in many cases. It will make people more road conscious. We know that people do not mind going to court if they go to court in the bosses’ time but it is a different matter when they have to go there in their own time and to get their witnesses to come in their own time to give evidence before a court at night. Naturally if it was a big involved case it would come down to day-work again but with these petty cases I strongly suggest that we have these cases disposed of at night. The magistrates’ courts are not that short of staff, I am sure. They could detail a magistrate and a prosecutor and the police could detail a court orderly and one or two others who are necessary to be there on duty every night from Monday to Friday and they could also work on a rota system as we do in the Police Force.

I can quite understand the hon. member for Umlaszi getting excited about the report of the Department of Justice, but the question is not whether it is only figures; the question is the value of such a report, and when one is dealing with Justice, one does not comment on all kinds of things. I think the hon. the Minister has already proved that when one is dealing with Justice, one keeps one’s mouth shut as far as possible and does one’s work. The Justice report, too, is therefore a striking example of how the department itself operates, by just giving the facts and withholding comment. By this I do not wish to imply that the report by the Department of Prisons is wrong in that it does offer comment, because their position is somewhat different. It is possible for that Department to offer comment without any problems arising. I should like to say a few words in regard to the Department of Prisons. In South Africa there are many people who always have a great deal to say about the number of prisoners in our prisons while we in South Africa do not really take into account the fact that the Department of Prisons is on the receiving end of people. This Parliament makes laws. The Police Force investigates and the Department of Justice prosecutes successfully with the result that people must be imprisoned. The attitude of the ordinary citizen in South Africa has a great deal to do with the people who are eventually imprisoned. The society in which we live expects of this Parliament to take certain steps and those steps usually result, as I have said, in people being imprisoned. Now there is a lot of loose talk about the total number of 440 922 prisoners in our prisons, but when one consults this annual report to which the hon. member for Umlazi referred, we see, for example, that on 30th June, 1971, 64 551 sentenced prisoners and 15 963 unsentenced prisoners were in custody. I think it is time for us to take cognizance of the fact that the percentage of people in custody, who are in the prisons and who have not been sentenced, is reasonably high. When we look at the situation as at 30th June, 1972, we see that there were 91 488 people in our prisons of whom 73 551 had been sentenced and 17 859 not. These people who had not been sentenced included quasi-patients of the State President and in addition there were infants and others who are reflected as being in prison. However, they are people who have no criminal background, but who must be there simply because of natural circumstances. As far as I am concerned, it is unfair simply to talk in general terms about our prison population being so much or so much. It is unfair always to criticize the Department of Prisons as being the one on the receiving end that does not have the necessary facilities to handle the number of prisoners. Something we should also consider is the kind of prisoner in the prisons at any specific time. When we take another look at the date which I have already mentioned, i.e. 30th June, 1971, we find that out of the total number of 370 761 prisoners with sentences up to and including four months included in this figure of more than 440 000, 181 449 were prisoners who were freed on parole within 24 hours. Therefore they are people who stayed in prison for an extremely limited period. They are not people who were in prison for a long time.

We must take cognizance of the fact—I take it that my colleague who will speak after me, will go into this matter in greater detail—that there is criticism of our prisons, for example, that they are overpopulated and that the necessary facilities are lacking, but such critics only go by the overall figure without keeping the practical situation in mind. I think that it is very unfair towards our prison authorities to take this figure pure and simple and to give out to the world that South Africa had such a fantastic prison population that was continually being held in the prisons while the flow, as I have indicated, takes place reasonably easily.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to refer to one or two other matters as well. The hon. member for Ermelo referred last night to a possible extension of the civil jurisdiction of regional courts. I take it that he referred to regional courts. I want to plead for an out and out extension of the jurisdiction of magisstrates’ courts. We have reached the stage in South Africa with our magistrates today when we may easily extend the jurisdiction of our magistrates’ courts. There has been tendency in our judicial history to determine the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court in terms of a certain money value. The position is that it is fixed at R1 000 for non-liquid cases and R2 000 for liquid cases. If we take into account the depreciation in the value of money and all the aspects which I do not want to deal with in too much detail at this stage, I believe that it would really be justifiable to ask for an extension of the jurisdiction of the ordinary magistrate’s court. The point of departure was that the potential for the magistrate’s court was fixed at a certain money value. That money value has changed completely in the meantime and if we measure the potential of the magistrate’s court in terms of the real value of money today, then, as far as I am concerned, a doubling of money value may actually take place as far as the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court is concerned.

If we were to do this, we would be ensuring as was advocated by the hon. member for Vereeniging, that the courts would be more accessible to the ordinary man in the street. I make this statement without detracting from the merits of other things. If we were to extend the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts, the legal costs in civil actions would also be much lower, because instead of a case having to be laid before the Supreme Court, where the legal costs are much higher, it could be heard in the magistrate’s court.

There is another matter associated with this, which worries me a great deal. There are many capable people in the Department of Justice and we have very good magistrates, but to my mind the situation is becoming critical because these people who have a judicial function, are saddled with so much administrative work. An ordinary magistrate in the rural areas does agency work for approximately 23 other departments. Although he himself may not be directly concerned in that work, to my mind it does not constitute correct utilization of that man’s potential to saddle him with this administrative work. This work may just as well be done by a man with lower qualifications—if I may put it that way. The magistrate may apparently delegate his powers, but the responsibility remains his. So, as head of his office, he obviously has to spend time on a certain amount of checking work. This does not allow him to perform his duties as presiding officer in a judicial capacity. We in South Africa do not have the manpower in the sphere of the administration of justice to be able to use people with this potential, people with this training and in many cases people with very sound experience, to do agency work for other Government departments. If we do things on such a basis, justice cannot be done in the true function of these people to the extent it should.

I am of the opinion that it is high time for us to consider this situation, and that it may be possible to make provision for the training of people who will be charged specifically with doing agency work in the magistrates’ offices. The necessary office space must be made available for this purpose and the responsibility must be taken away from the magistrate so as to enable him to spend his time on his judicial function. We have the position that if the jurisdiction could be extended, many more cases could be handled in the magistrate’s court. The magistrate’s hands must be freed so as to enable him to handle those cases and this will be instrumental in bringing about a definite decrease in the costs of litigation, as a result of which the man in the street will feel more at liberty to make use of our courts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to give my strongest support to the final plea made by the hon. member for Christiana. I think that if we could do this, it could only lead to improvement. The hon. member, too, advocated the extension of the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts. I want to say that this would result in the magistrates having to take even greater responsibility upon their shoulders. Consequently that would cause the appeal I made last night to be even more urgent, the appeal that a change in the situation of the magistrates should be effected. I want to say that I feel that the hon. member for Potchefstroom and the hon. member for Kroonstad were not fair towards me last night when they said that I was accusing the magistrates of not giving uprejudiced decisions. That is not what I said at all.

You said that that was what the officials did, and they, too, are public servants.

No, I definitely did not say that they were prejudiced. I was purely taking up a stand on a point of principle and spoke about the rift which existed between the executive authority and the judicial authority of the magistrate. I said that while a spirit of independence did prevail among the magistrates, there was no factual independence, because they were part of the executive authority. That is all I said in that connection.

Then I want to address a plea to the hon. the Minister. I am pleased to learn that the hon. the Minister shares my belief, that the situation of magistrates, and particularly their remuneration, could be improved. I do not believe that this can be done unless there is a change in the whole structure, as I have indicated to the hon. the Minister. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. the Minister when he says that we can never give these people enough, because I think that we can give them much more. This is the appeal I want to make. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister being satisfied to sit back and to say that since we can never give them enough, we cannot give them anything more. Surely we must consider whether a real improvement cannot be effected in this connection. This is my plea.

I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that all the magistrates are satisfied with the situation as it exists. I think that there is dissatisfaction among them. I shall demonstrate this at a later stage. I have come to this conclusion, because, in the first instance, the hon. the Minister has spoken about the situation of magistrates, and has said that improvements can occur in this respect. In the second instance Mr. Justice Kowie Marais made certain proposals. I have already said that he believed that he was doing this in all honesty and sincerity. His intentions were good; he tried to make a contribution in this respect. It is for that reason that I was shocked by the attack made on Mr. Justice Kowie Marais by the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is in this respect. What shocked me is not the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister attacked him about what he had said, because it is, after all, the hon. the Prime Minister’s right to do so, but what shocked us all—it was not only I who was shocked, but also many people with whom I have spoken—was the terms in which he had attacked the hon. judge.

He was quite right.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom must give me the opportunity to state my argument; then he will be able to form a better judgment at a later stage. According to The Star of 20th October last year, the hon. the Prime Minister said—

He went on to say—

I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister was quite fair in this summary of what the hon. Mr. Justice Marais had said. I think that if anyone has done a disservice to the administration of justice, the hon. the Prime Minister has done so through this attack of his. Here is a judge who is trying to make a contribution and the hon. the Prime Minister has described this highly esteemed judge as irresponsible, a judge of our Supreme Court! After all, he has a firm hand in the appointment of judges. Now he says that he has no confidence in them because these people are providing the enemies of South Africa with ammunition. That is an out-and-out political attack, the kind of attack often made on the United Party by the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Justice Marais did not make a political speech. He was not trying to play politics with the matter. I say that the hon. the Prime Minister did the administration of justice in South Africa a disservice through the attack which he made on the hon. judge. If he says that we have such irresponsible judges, judges who say such irresponsible things and provide our enemies with ammunition, then surely he has no confidence …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

My time is too limited to answer questions as well. How does the hon. the Prime Minister expect other people to have confidence in our judges, judges which he himself appoints? No, I do not think this is good enough and I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister can say in defence of that, if he wants to defend it. I believe that a disservice has been done to the Bench as a whole. We must not prohibit our judges from expressing also their opinions on the question of improved administration of justice in South Africa, because through that they are doing South Africa a good turn as well.

It is not only those people who have made proposals. I want to suggest that the magistrates themselves have made proposals in this connection through the Magistrates’ Association. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give these proposals his attention. To the best of my knowledge their proposals were on the lines of the French system which does have merit, namely that a person who joins the Department of Justice does so with the object of pursuing either one direction or another from the very outset; either the direction of becoming a prosecutor or a magistrate. Therefore all of his training in the department has one object in view, namely to make him either a prosecutor or a magistrate. I am perfectly willing to concede that a person, as part of his training as a magistrate, should definitely gain experience as a prosecutor. He may even undertake defence cases, too, the cases of people who do not have a defence or who do not have money. These he may undertake as part of his training but his ultimate aim must be to act as a judicial officer. At present we have the problem, and all magistrates will admit this, that one starts today as a prosecutor and after one has had many years of experience as a prosecutor, and if one is a very good prosecutor, one becomes a magistrate.

That is not so, and you know it is not.

It is so. Ninety per cent of them begin as prosecutors. In the nature of things that man develops an orientation to the side of the State which is prosecuting. Then it is very difficult for him. This has two consequences. He is unwittingly orientated in that direction, or if he is aware of the fact that his orientation is perhaps in favour of the prosecution, he leans to the other side and may be inclined to give the accused the benefit. This is a matter in which the magistrate must first find himself and only after years of experience he succeeds to maintain the correct balance. I do not believe that the training in this connection is aimed at cultivating a spirit of independence in those people, particularly from the initial stages when this is really necessary for our bench. In the light of the proposal made by the magistrates themselves, that a division should be made between the two in one way or another, I believe that this is something which the hon. the Minister may profitably consider. This is being done in a country like France, and I believe that in the end, I could almost say, a kind of professional jealousy arises between the two which in effect is a good thing because the one does not or cannot collaborate with the other in any sense of the word, and in that case there is much more independence between the prosecution and the man sitting on the Bench than there is at present. A magistrate’s job is a specialized one. He gets there after having been a prosecutor and then he must do civil work. His whole life and training has been that of a State prosecutor and now suddenly from the nature of the case, he must do civil work as well. As I said last night, he must do civil work which sometimes involves large sums of money. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the appointment of a messenger of the court for the area to the north of Pretoria. We in that area have a long history of solidarity—development along our own lines one may virtually say. The urban development which has taken place there and is still in progress, justifies the institution of such a post.

The magistrate’s office of Pretoria North is accommodated in a building which is no longer adequate but it gives me pleasure to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that his department is planning a new building. I hope that it will be possible to facilitate the construction of this building, because if there is one department which is aware of the particular problems to the north of Pretoria, because of its situation and other circumstances, then that department in the Department of Justice. We owe them a debt of gratitude not only for being aware of our particular circumstances, but also for translating their words into action and helping us in the elimination of our bottlenecks.

Having thanked the Minister, I must unfortunately also beg his pardon. I must beg his pardon on behalf of the supporters of the United Party outside this House for the conduct of the United Party inside this House. In fact, if I could have been allowed, I should have liked to move that the salary of the chairman of the Justice Group of the United Party be reduced. Their conduct in this House in this debate yesterday and today amounts to the following: A flurry about a passing interjection by the hon. the Minister, a whining about bilingualism in hotels, and a display of resistance against the restriction of people who have been engaging in activities which endanger the security of the State.

A bunch of double-talkers.

This, I think is a fair summary of their conduct. As far as the interjection made by the Minister on 9th March is concerned, we all know, after all, in what connection it was made. Everyone in this House knows how and for what purpose that interjection was made. Everyone knows that when the Minister made that interjection …

[Inaudible.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District have the right to tell me that I must shut my trap?

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that he must moderate his language in the House. The hon. member may proceed.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member entitled to refer to hon. members in the Opposition as “dubbelpraters”?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Not only are they double-talkers, they are also nonsense-talkers.

I could not hear you, Sir. Did I understand you correctly that you ruled that “dubbelpraters” was unparliamentary? There was so much noise, I could not hear what you said.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. I have said that the hon. member for Wonderboom may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Wonderboom may proceed.

On 9th March the Minister set out the background from which certain restrictions had resulted and by that time this kind of matter had been debated over and over again, namely why the Government regarded restriction as the correct action in similar instances. No one doubted the Government’s standpoint and the reasons for it. And because this could not penetrate into the thick skulls of the Opposition, the hon. the Minister gave an additional reason in passing and by way of an interjection, i.e. that of a platform which was being provided, and which, as a statement of fact, is correct. Now they come along and cling, as khaki weed does to a wool blanket, to that one interjection by the hon. the Minister. They cling to that for all they are worth. That is the only argument that remains to them. I think that this is disgusting conduct on their part to want to announce to the world that that is the only or the most important reason given by the hon. the Minister for the restrictions. They know—it is recorded in Hansard—and everyone knows what the fact of the matter is. But now they are clinging to that one passing interjection. That is reprehensible of them. It amounts to a blackening of the name of South Africa. And then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not know that it is not as a result of the tea-drinking stories that we acquire a bad name overseas. Here is an indication of how it happens.

Then there was a whining about bilingualism. The hotel industry is a protected industry. It is a service to the public. Hotels handle liquor and obtain a licence to render certain services. There are many people who will tell you, “see here, if those services are not up to standard, we are prepared to take that licence over. Give us that licence and we shall meet that standard”. People are queueing up to obtain such licences. Bilingualism is certainly part of the standard of service which should be rendered, just as there are other standards which may be expected from a hotel. But they are opposed to that. The hon. member for Durban Point asked whether this was a “Herstigte” suggestion. No, theirs corresponds with the suggestion of the Herstigte Nasionale Party. They are building on the same kind of thing. We on this side respect the language of both language groups. We have given proof of that and they have not.

Then there is the question of restrictions. How many times more must we teach them the elementary lessons of statecraft, the order of authority and concepts such as sovereignty and the exercise of power and on whom the responsibility for the maintenance of order rests. The Government and its executive do not act arbitrarily when they restrict people. They act in accordance with an Act of this Parliament. It is in their discretion how they want to maintain the security of the State. There are, of course, many threatening phenomena. In the normal course of life the property and security of the individual must be protected. For that reason there are courts and police officers. This is the normal state of affairs and has been for centuries. But a threat may also arise by way of conventional war. For that reason the State has a Defence Force. The Government will decide at what stage the Defence Force should be used to counter such a conventional threat to security.

Then, in recent times, there has been a sophisticated, subtle, underhand and diabolical threat which can have a destructive effect unless timeous action is taken. In this instance, too, the State must decide how it should act. It can and must utilize the means which Parliament has granted it to combat these sly forms of threat, and that is the end of the story. But, Sir, they are not ignorant; they know what the position is. Ignorance is not the reason why they are opposed to restrictions. The real reason is that an apology must be registered for the four United Party members who signed the report of the Schlebusch Commission. After their bosses in the English-language Press rapped them over the knuckles, they are now coming along with an apology; that is all that is happening here. I hope that this will now be the end of this matter. They must not be so afraid of the cold water; we shall assist them. We shall have to walk together through the storms ahead. They may just as well cooperate with us now in the sphere of security. If they do this, they will see to what extent we can promote our own protection.

Sir, in conclusion I just want to say a few words about our prisoners. A great deal has been said about people who are in the prisons and about people who should be released. However, little has been said about the conditions in our prisons. I want to congratulate the prison authorities in our country. In essential respects they comply with internationally laid down standards and requirements, such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Offenders which were laid down in 1955 under the auspices of U.N. One would like to see a list being drawn up and a test being applied to see where South Africa stands on the list of countries as far as complying with these requirements is concerned. It is scandalous that we should be accused in the ranks of U.N. and elsewhere of atrocious torturing of prisoners and poor and inhuman conditions prevailing in our prisons. This sort of accusation also reverberates from the hills of Houghton. I want to quote an extract to indicate what comes from U.N.—

Sir, there is not enough time to analyse this false accusation in detail and I just want to mention one fact, in the field of food. The daily diet of a male Bantu prisoner has a calory value of 3 059 at present. That for White men is 2 754 calories. This is only one aspect, but an important one. So one can continue to give the lie to U.N. Our prison administration is based on modern methods, on civilized, humane treatment with a view to rehabilitation. Our prison authorities may tell the world, “Come and look at our prisons, our doors are open to visits by judges, members of Parliament and experts from overseas, and we need not be ashamed for one moment of what goes on in our prisons.” We appreciate the work done by our prison administration. We congratulate them on the standards which have been achieved so far.

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that the senior officials of the Prisons Department are doing their best to improve conditions in our prisons in South Africa, but I think the hon. member for Wonderboom is being a little naïve if he thinks that one has simply to lay down regulations, and that they will be carried out, just like that, throughout the prisons. It is virtually impossible to maintain complete supervision over everything that goes on in every prison in the country, with the best will in the world. I have no doubt that there are certain prisons where conditions are not ideal. I have no doubt also that the authorities would be the first to admit it. However, as I say, they are doing their best to improve conditions.

Last night the hon. the Minister took umbrage at the fact that figures were quoted which revealed that our average daily prison population was very much in excess, pro rata, of that in other Western countries. He pointed out, quite correctly, that South Africa, after all, does not have a homogeneous population like Great Britain for instance, and that one could therefore expect our figures to be somewhat different. I think there is something in what he says. On the other hand it is also true that although our population has just about doubled since 1948 when this régime took over, our daily average prison population has increased four times. That I do not think is a figure which can be greeted with complacency. I will say, however, that the hon. the Minister of Prisons is, of course, a victim of the laws that exist in South Africa. In other words, it is not his fault that our gaols are filled with prisoners to the overcrowded extent that they are. It is not his fault that there is a daily average prison population of 91 000 in South Africa. His gaols receive the end results of the laws that we pass in South Africa, and there is no doubt that over the last 25 years the number of laws that have been put on the Statute Book to restrict movement and so on, coupled at the same time with the fact that the homelands have not by any means been able to provide alternative employment opportunities, has resulted in many thousands of Black people coming to the cities illegally, where they get picked up under influx control laws. These are the people who jam gaols. This is the reason why the huge percentage of our prison population relates to those people who are sent to gaol for four months and under. I think what we need really is a review of laws that turn ordinary citizens, who are looking for work, into statutory criminals who fill our gaols. I know that attempts have been made by the aid centres to reduce the number of people who go to gaol for this offence, and when we come to the Bantu Administration Vote I shall say something more about that. There has certainly been an appreciable decrease in the number of Black people who go to gaol simply for the non-production of passes. The question then arises, of course, whether they should have been picked up by the Police in the first instance, and that is something that I will raise under the Police Vote. But, Sir, there is no doubt that the whole system in South Africa, which has encouraged migratory labour, which has led to the break-up of family life, which in turn has led to illegitimacy in the urban areas, and lack of proper parental control, has led to an enormous increase in ordinary crime in South Africa. Therefore, it may well be necessary that the hon. the Minister should turn his attention to the need for a proper inquiry into the basic causes of crime in South Africa, because I believe that far too much emphasis in our penal system is placed on punishment and that not nearly enough emphasis is placed on the prevention of crime. Unless we get around to a new psychological attitude, we are simply going to go ahead spending more and more money on prisons—I think the estimate is up to about R40 million this year—and we are simply going to have an acceleration in the rate of crime which we have had over the last 25 years. We are going to go along on that same course, and we are developing a society which is distinctly unhealthy in South Africa where we have so many young people seeing the inside of prisons. I believe, too, that the suggestion by Judge Steyn that more emphasis should be placed on suspended sentences is worthy of attention. He has also suggested seminars on punishment. In other words, he considers that there is a tremendous discrepancy in the type of punishment which is handed out by magistrates and judges throughout the country and that there ought to be some uniformity of punishment. That is why he suggested these seminars, and I think that suggestion is very worthy of the hon. the Minister’s attention.

Sir, yesterday afternoon and last night as well the hon. the Minister mentioned the type of work which is being done in prisons. He stated that apart from work done by prisoners in the prisons themselves, prisoners were put out to work for local authorities and on public works, and he said that if any were left over, they were then sent off to work for private employers, if they agreed to go. Sir, I must say that I have the strongest objection to this form of work for prisoners. I do not believe that nearly enough supervision is exercised over these work parties that go out for instance, to work on farms. There have been far too many cases of assault on prisoners, and I do not believe that we should be going in for the farm gaols which are presently being used. I understood that the idea was to phase this system out as far as possible and that instead of this system establishments rather like Leeukop near to Johannesburg were going to be set up by the Prisons Department, where the Department of Prisons actually farms itself and uses prison labour. I think this is a far more satisfactory way of using prisoners, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some idea as to how much progress has been made with this type of prison farm rather than the existing type where small gaols are built—outlying stations, as they are called—and the prisoners are then used by the local farmers at, I think, round about 15 cents a day. This money is paid by the farmer to the Prisons Department, and I might add in passing that this has a very bad effect on depressing wage levels in the rural areas, so I am against it for that reason as well. I might ask the hon. the Minister what has happened in the Western Province, where I believe that something like 6 000 farm prisoners are used. There was some question as to whether or not this conflicted with the GATT agreement. I should like to know whether we are discontinuing the system of using prisoners in our vineyards and orchards in the Western Cape. I should like to have some information in that regard.

I want to say something about the type of work done by the political prisoners on Robben Island. I have raised this before and I would like to raise it again. It seems to me that we ought to be able to find some more constructive work for educated prisoners on Robben Island than simply working the sandpit or collecting seaweed. Surely, some form of construction work or any way some different form of work could be thought up for prisoners of this type. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this because many of these men on Robben Island are there for a long period, some for life, and as we know there is no consideration or any question of amnesty for this type of prisoner. To leave them indefinitely doing this sort of work is, I think, wrong, and I hope the Minister will do something about it.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister also whether he would like to give the House some explanation of the fact that several prison chaplains were dismissed during last year. I think four Methodists and one Anglican were dismissed without any reasons being given. I want to know whether there is any political basis for this. Most of these men have been working for many years in the prisons and apparently up to now they were perfectly satisfactory. One of them, I know, expressed disapproval of Police action during the student/Police fracas last year, and I should like some assurance from the hon. the Minister that sort of thing does not motivate the dismissal of people who are doing good work in the prisons.

There is one other thing I want to raise. I have raised this as well before, and I am hoping to get a change of attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister. That is in regard to the question of allowing the political prisoners to have newspapers. As the Minister knows, I regularly visit the prisons and the one and overriding complaint that political prisoners have is that they are not allowed any newspapers.

These men are shut up for many years and when they come out they come into a new world. Some of them have been in gaol for seven years and when they come out they enter a new world.

That is how it should be.

They are completely cut off from all news and if we think of the rehabilitation of these people, it makes it extremely difficult if they do not know what is going on in the world. [Time expired.]

I want to try to reply briefly to a few hon. members. In the first place, I want to deal jointly with the hon. members for Durban Point and Jeppes. Both of them adopted the attitude that since we had such a small number of restricted persons, why could we not bring these people to court? I think this was the argument advanced by the hon. members for Durban Point and Jeppes. As I have said, I do not prosecute these people myself. That is not my function. A dossier is opened and that is passed on to the Attorney-General. But now I may just add that I happen to know that difficulty is often experienced in furnishing sufficient proof, not because one does not have sufficient proof, but for the simple reason that one may not reveal one’s proof, because the moment one does so, that source becomes useless to one in future. Surely that is elementary. Take the university here in Cape Town, or even the one in Johannesburg. We have people there, students or call them what you like, but we have ears and eyes there, and if we did not do that, we would have a very weak Government. We have ears and eyes there, people who see what is going on and are in a position to report them. They are in a position to submit the documents. These are sufficient for me to restrict persons. It is not always enough to tell the Attorney-General, “These are the facts, but I am sorry that I cannot have this person appear in court.” This was done on one occasion, i.e. in the case of Bram Fischer. I think in that case Ludi had penetrated the highest circles of the Communist Party. Bram Fischer was a big fish, of course, and it was worth while to reveal Ludi’s identity and to submit his evidence to the court. After that, of course, he was of no further use to the Police and the Security Branch. Consequently I can quite understand why the Attorney-General and the Police are experiencing difficulty in the case of the average person in bringing people to court at all times.

Do you mean that the Police really make the decision?

No, the Attorney-General makes the decision.

But who decides whether the spy …

Order! The hon. member must rise if he wants to put a question.

I do not follow what the hon. member means. However, the Police makes out the dossier, passes it on to the Attorney-General, but tells the Attorney-General that the source can unfortunately not be disclosed. The Attorney-General may even be told Who the source is, but at the same time he is told that the Police does not want to bring the informant to court, because if that is done, he will be useless in future. You then have to choose between instituting a prosecution against the person and disclose the source as opposed to the usefulness of the source in future. That is really the crux of the matter.

May I ask a question? Has the hon. the Minister ever tested the validity or the truth of a statement from such a source?

The hon. member may take it from me that by the time I get into the picture to issue restriction orders, we already have at our disposal a host of particulars of various things that have taken place and in connection with the crosschecking and re-checking of such information. I am not so naïve as to issue a restriction order at the first opportunity when something is said about a person. That kind of thing simply does not happen. Hon. members may take it from me that when the stage of imposing a restriction is reached, a host of reports have already been received on a particular person. Take the case of these eight persons who were connected with the universities. There are hundreds of bulky files on them. As far back as two or three years ago I had Miss Ensor informed through the chief magistrate of Durban that she had to watch her step, as she was dabbling in dangerous things and would be guilty of an offence in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. That happened three years ago. The case against her has been mounting up and up until the present. There is also the case of Pretorius. He has been receiving attention for a long time. Pretorius’s predecessor was Neville Curtis, and we were on the point of restricting Curtis but then Pretorius took over. At the time we thought we had to wait and see whether Nusas would not perhaps adopt a different course. It is obvious, therefore, that this thing has been going on for years. I should like hon. members to take my word for it. If they should ever come into power one day, they would be in a position to examine these documents, and then they would be able to see whether we had ever restricted any person on the grounds of a report that was not really a well-founded one. That simply does not happen.

What do you people have to say now?

Hon. members may take it from me that this simply does not happen.

Hon. members may also take the word of the members of the Schlebusch Commission.

Are you satisfied now? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is speaking.

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. With a broad sweep of his hand, as is his wont, the hon. member rose here, then put his hand into his trouser pocket and started fighting across the floor.

No one knows with whom.

I found it difficult to follow with whom he was fighting, but eventually I found out that he was fighting with me. [Interjections.] He told me that I did not know what was going on in my department, that I did not know what difficulties the officials in the Department of Justice were experiencing in the Bantu homelands. Presumably he knows everything about that. Eventually I had to find out that he was actually talking about an application made under section 100bis. Section 100bis provides that a Bantu person may apply for a liquor licence, be it for on-consumption or off-consumption purposes. I heard the story later on, and I just want to mention in passing that it also appeared that he had entered into correspondence with my department and that in that correspondence he had adopted almost the same attitude he adopted here in this House. I may tell him that one does not get anywhere with that kind of attitude. The point at issue is, in the first instance, the applications made under section 100bis. The issuing of liquor licences falls under the Bantu homelands and is actually a matter which they have to deal with themselves. We had an application from the Machangana authority in which they asked us whether we would not be so kind as to do the work since they were not yet competent for the task. They have the right to do this, for section 21 of the Constitution Act provides that if they do not wish to carry on with certain tasks assigned to them, they may request the Government of the Republic to do the work for them. In this case we agreed to doing it. In the meantime no other homeland authorities had applied for that. Consequently the Department of Justice could not deal with those cases under section 100bis which came from the homelands. It was only recently that the other homeland governments applied for this work to be done for them by us. Consequently the difficulty arose that there was a delay in regard to such applications, for the simple reason that the Department of Justice had no control over liquor matters in the Zulu homeland itself. We are doing this now, after we have received this request from them.

I understand that the hon. member interested himself in an application made by a Bantu person. As a result of information obtained by us from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, we were under the impression that this area fell within the KwaZulu territory.

That application has been disposed of.

That application has been disposed of in the meantime. It was found that the information obtained by us was incorrect and that this area was situated within the White area, and consequently we then disposed of the matter.

The second complaint made by the hon. member was when he wanted to know from us what languages would be required from the hotels in the Bantu areas. He wanted to know whether we were going to require English and Afrikaans, whether we were going to require two other languages, or what. We must draw a distinction here, for the simple reason that this condition which has now been imposed is only applicable to hotels for Whites. There are quite a number of hotels for non-Whites, and more specifically for Bantu.

May I put a question? Has it been stated that way in the regulations, i.e. that this will only be applicable to White hotels?

That is what the regulations provide; in fact, they start with that. In the Bantu homelands there are hotels for non-Whites and then there are also a few hotels which are still intended for Whites. In a case where it is an hotel in the homelands which is intended for Whites, the condition stated in the regulations will also be applicable. We are of course doing this purely on an agency basis for the homeland government concerned. When the homeland governments ask us through the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to add another language, as they want it in their own territory, we shall add one with the greatest pleasure. At the moment, however, only the two official languages are applicable. Then the hon. member wanted to know what would happen to the hotels in Matatiele, and he said I had to give him the answer before the election took place in Aliwal North. Last year already the White area of Matatiele was added to the magisterial district of Mount Currie. In the General Law Amendment Bill, which will be introduced here shortly, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that the hotels in that White area will also have to comply with this requirement. In fact, they will have to comply with a second requirement, namely that within five years from now they will have to have themselves classified as we did a few years ago in regard to the rest of the hotels in the Mount Currie District. Therefore, the answer is that if the public in Matatiele in the constituency of Aliwal North should go to a hotel in Matatiele, they would be able to speak Afrikaans or English, as they prefer.

The only conditions is that they may not talk nonsense, as the hon. member does.

Are they no longer allowed to speak Xhosa?

I think that I have now finished dealing with that hon. member.

The hon. member for Jeppes once again commented in strong terms on legal aid. The hon. member for Jeppes!

I beg your pardon.

I want to speak to you. I repeat, the hon. member for Jeppes once again commented in strong terms on legal aid. Having listened to him, I gained the impression that he wanted us to do it the way it was done in the wealthiest country in the world, in America, where virtually every person, or the majority at any rate, receive legal aid. That is the impression I gained. I do not think the Legal Aid Board will ever proceed to taking that step. I have confidence in the Legal Aid Board. It consists of balanced people. A judge is the chairman, and the Bar, the Attorney-General, the legal profession and attorneys as well as the relevant departments are represented on it. I cannot imagine that they will go so far that virtually every person will receive legal aid.

Why has so little money been voted for then?

They do not have little money. I have already made it clear virtually a hundred times that at the moment they still have R½ million which has not yet been used. They have only used approximately R234 000 so far. Therefore, the money is there, and that is all they asked for. Am I now to force money down their throats?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is it not necessary that this board be urged to do a little more? I mentioned as an example that there was only one official in a big city such as Johannesburg.

My information in connection with Johannesburg is that the Legal Aid Board opened an office there recently. I do not arrange their business for them; they arrange their business themselves. In the meantime they are being assisted by the magistrates’ offices if they do not have staff as yet. My information is that an office was opened there recently and that, although they only have one official there at present, they are engaged in recruiting more officials. How many they have in mind, I would not be able to say.

I shall investigate the matter a little.

You are welcome to ascertain this from the director of the Legal Aid Board I do not think it is fair to expect the taxpayer to bear the costs of all litigation, or a large part of it, in this country. I think this would be wrong, and I believe that the Legal Aid Board would view this in the same light.

I thank the hon. member for Innesdal for his speech. He is an ex-magistrate, who is in a position to speak from first-hand experience: one may therefore accept what he says. I was pleased to hear the evidence which he furnished here in relation to the department.

The hon. member for Ermelo spoke about the civil jurisdiction of magistrates, and wanted to know whether the time had not arrived for it to be raised. This was also mentioned by someone else this afternoon. The position is that this will of course require legislation. When the legislation is introduced, we shall have every opportunity to discuss it. However, I may indicate now that we are convinced that the present civil jurisdiction which the magistrates’ courts have, no longer tallies with the money values. The present money value was determined in 1963, i.e. R1 000 and R2 000, illiquid and liquid, as the case may be. We asked the Treasury to look into the matter to a certain extent, and it appears that when we only take money values into account, it is possible to raise one’s civil jurisdiction to R1 500, and to R3 000 in cases where liquid documents are concerned. At the moment consideration is not being given to doing this, but the feeling is nevertheless that the money values are not real; they do not tally with what has happened in the meantime.

The hon. member for Brakpan referred to the new Liquor Act and to certain forms which he said were very complicated. The position with the Liquor Act is that we aim at having it ready by the end of this year and that it will then be made known to the public so that we may secure opinions in that way. I want to say that we also feel that the forms, especially in the case of re-applications, are much too complicated and that a reform may take place in this respect. How far we shall go with that, i cannot say at this moment, but the feeling is that these forms can be simplified.

I thank the hon. member for Potgietersrus for his contribution. Then I come to the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member for Umlazi was very concerned about the report of the Department of Justice and said it was “only a mass of figures that tell no tale.” The hon. member said he had obtained no information from it. I want to ask the hon. member merely to take a look at heading F, “Staff”, on page 16. I think the information has been arranged very clearly, and, after all, what more does one want to know? For instance, under the heading “Departmental Establishment” one finds the item “Promotions”, which came to 390 in 1971 and to 424 in 1972; “Resignations”, 655 in 1971 and 838 in 1972. Now, is there any need for writing long sentences about it when one can reflect the information in this easy way? Other items under this heading, on a comparative basis between 1971 and 1972, are, for instance, “Dismissals”—23 and 30; “Retirements”—42 and 45; “Cases of abscondence”—three and four; “Transfers (to other departments)”—69 and 83; and so it goes on. Under the second sub-heading, i.e. “New Appointments”, the following items are for instance to be found: Administrative Assistents; Clerical Assistants; Legal Assistants: Magistrates; Senior Administratives Assistants; State Advocates; State Attorneys; Typists; Other, including Bantu. Now, what more does one want to know? One can draw one’s own conclusions from this information and one can base one’s speech on it.

What about the activities of the department?

The activities are dealt with. Here, for instance, the courses are indicated as follows. There is, for example, the heading “Statistices of individual subjects in respect of officers who attended part-time courses are as follows: …” Then again there are other headings such as “Judicial courses” and “Interpreters’ courses”, etc. This is the position as far as training is concerned. Matters such as “Inspectorate” and “Districts and courts”, are also elaborated on, and there are headings such as “New districts created”, “District boundaries redefined”, and so forth. In this way, therefore, one has absolutely everything in the most readily available form. One can infer from the heading “Resignations” what difficulties the department has to contend with in this regard. The department has a large number of resignations because these people are qualified. The hon. member for Florida is one of the people who used to work in the Department of Justice and subsequently resigned. In the same way there are other resignations as well. This is one of the difficulties one has with professionally trained people. They simply do not stay in the Public Service. But why should a lot of words be written about it? Here one has it in front of one. There is an explanation for every individual aspect. I really cannot agree with the hon. member.

The hon. member said that the offices had to be open on Saturdays and that a “skeleton staff”, to use his words, had to be on duty. But in actual fact the staff of the magistrates’ offices, just as is the case with the rest of the Public Service, are now doing half an hour a day more than used to be the position under the old setup. Now the hon. member wants the staff to Work on Saturdays as well. I am telling that hon. member that any department which requires its staff to work on Saturdays will not get one single applicant. A five-day week is a trend which simply prevails throughout the country. Any person who now wants to reintroduce a six-day week, will not get the necessary applicants. I should like to know whether the hon. member is speaking on behalf of the Opposition in saying that people should also work on Saturdays.

This is my personal view.

Then the hon. member referred to traffic cases. He said there had to be night courts for traffic cases. We were prepared to do this and we wanted to introduce it in Johannesburg. At the last moment, however, the Johannesburg City Council told us that they did not see their way clear to proceeding with it. It goes without saying that their traffic people have to appear when the such cases are being dealt with. However, the department was quite willing to do this. There was opposition and, of course, we could not introduce it against their will. If this is the case in Johannesburg, I take it that this is also the case in other big cities.

I want to thank the hon. member for Christiana for the sound contribution made by him on the subject of our prison populations. People do not always realize what the problems are with which the Department of Prisons has to contend. Nor do they always realize that apart from the large figure mentioned by us, there are from 17 000 up to as much as 23 000 cases that have not yet appeared in court and been sentenced. If that number is left out of account, one’s prison population figure is much lower.

He also touched upon the question of civil jurisdiction. I have already replied to that.

The hon. member for Florida said there was dissatisfaction in the ranks of the magistrates. I said last night that I did not know of any person who had an aversion to money, and I therefore believe that any magistrate who can earn more, will take it. However, there has been no real representations in this regard, at least not to our knowledge. Nor do we have any knowledge of the proposal which the hon. member said had originated in the ranks of the magistrates, i.e. that they be trained in one particular field. There have been no such representations on an official level. I would be pleased if the hon. member would disclose his source, for officially the department has not received any such representations.

I am not going to discuss the matter relating to Mr. justice Marais, for the simple reason that I am in fact involved in it. This is why I did not react to it at the time. He said it had to be taken away from the Minister of Justice and given to the Chief Justice. Surely it would not look good if the Minister of Justice had to speak against it. That is why the Prime Minister spoke about it. Now, I cannot understand why the hon. member did not ask the hon. the Prime Minister under his Vote why he had said such things. Why does he ask me such questions now? I cannot reply to them, nor do I wish to reply to them. I think too much has already been said about this matter.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom for his contribution. I understand that while I was out of the House, he pleaded for a new magistrate’s court in Pretoria North. I have learnt from the Secretary that this has been included in the bigger works and that it will be built in due course.

He talked a lot of twaddle in the rest of his speech, so you are quire right not to reply to him.

Sir, that hon. member is talking now, but Durban waited too, and what are they getting today? Durban is going to have the best magistrate’s court in the whole country. Something like R15 million has been spent on it. He is the last person who should open his mouth. He should keep absolutely quiet when we talk about such matters. It is for the very reason that Durban has cost us such a great deal of money that we have had to neglect the other places.

Yes, they took mine as well.

I was talking about the rest of his speech—all the twaddle that you are quite rightly not replying to.

The hon. member for Houghton touched upon a number of matters. She spoke, amongst other things, about the increase in our prison population, and said that this was not in proportion to our population increase. She said it had increased more rapidly. Unfortunately this is a fact throughout the world. I read the other day that this was also happening in England. What is more, the offences are of a more serious nature too. It is an ugly kind of thing that is happening here. But there is nothing we can do about it. We may not allow the various crimes to continue simply because we do not want the prison population to increase. That is unfortunately the position.

Concerning the work-parties leaving the prison premises to work outside, it is true that there have been escapes. Unfortunately it is true that these escapes have taken place and that they leave a bad impression. I regret them, but we as the Department of Prisons do not have enough warders and supervisors to staff all the posts. This is a fact. She also said she understood that this system was in conflict with the GATT agreement. That is also true. The Department of Agriculture along with the Department of Foreign Affairs are dealing with this matter at present. There has been a conflict as regards the interests of the foreign importers of our produce in this regard. What the outcome of this will be, I cannot say at the moment. In the meantime we have been taking precautions by way of the Leeukop-type of prison farm, where we shall employ these people ourselves. As I said last night, we cannot allow these people to be inactive. That is terribly frustrating, and consequently we must keep them busy. What is more, various prison farms have been purchased. The Cabinet has allocated an amount of money to the Department of Prisons, and that is reflected in the Budget, as the hon. member will see.

The hon. member also referred to the chaplains. These are not really chaplains, they are spiritual visitors. Four of them were dismissed during the past year; I think there were two from the Methodist Church, one Anglican and one Lutheran. I think two of them happened to be dismissed on the same day, and the other two were dismissed on different dates. Sir, there is absolutely nothing behind it. The position is examined from time to time and reports are made on the way in which these people minister to the spiritual needs of their flocks, and once they no longer comply with the requirements of the department, we ask the denomination concerned rather to appoint someone else to do the job, and that is what happened to these people. At the time I saw in the newspapers that a terrible fuss was being made about this matter, as if we had done a terrible injustice to these people, but that was not the case.

As far as Robben Island is concerned, the hon. member wanted to know whether it was not possible for the prisoners to do more interesting work. The fact of the matter is that there are many different groups, as the hon. member knows; the one group works in the stone quarries, another group works in the lime quarries, and yet another group is kept busy with gathering sea-bamboo. I take it that any kind of work in a prison becomes monotonous after a certain time, and we are not in a position to change the work from time to time in such a way that it suits the prisoners who have been there for quite some time. This is unfortunately the case, but it is one of the things that happens in a prison. It is just as monotonous to sit and mend post office mail-bags all day.

What about carpentry shops and things like that?

Then the hon. member asked us to allow political prisoners, as she called them, to get newspapers. That is an old request of the hon. member. She has asked for it umpteen times and, unfortunately, the answer is always “no”.

You have never given me a reason.

Sir, what with all the stories appearing in our newspapers nowadays, I believe that it will make rather wonderful reading for these people. What about the hon. member’s own speech, for instance?

What about Die Vaderland or Die Transvaler?

What about the Sunday Times?

No, Sir, I am afraid that this is one of the things on which we shall not agree. The hon. member knows what reading matter the prisoners are getting. It is very innocent reading matter, but it is interesting. It is correct that parts are cut out. Unfortunately this is Prison policy which we are following here, and I am afraid that we cannot deviate from it.

Sir, I think I have now replied to all hon. members who took part in this debate.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 20 and S.W.A. Vote 10.—“Commerce”, and Revenue Vote No. 21, Loan Vote J and S.W.A. Vote No. 11. —“Industries”:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, there are a number of matters that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister this afternoon, but before doing so I would like to say just a few words in regard to multi-level selling. You will remember that last year we had a full discussion in this House on the problems of multi-level selling and the dangers to the public. I want to compliment the hon. the Minister and his department on the excellent regulations to control multi-level marketing that were gazetted in terms of the Price Control Act in December last year. These regulations will, I believe, prove adequate in protecting the public against the malpractices that we have had in the past. At the same time I also believe that these regulations will in no way interfere with people who are doing normal, legitimate business. The problem of multi-level marketing is an international one, and I know from my own experience that a number of countries have found and are still finding the greatest difficulty in finding the answer to controlling multi-level selling. I think we have done a very good job. It does seem to me that since our discussion here last year and since these regulations were promulgated, we have heard of few, if any, new multi-level organizations, and it would therefore seem that the position is now reasonably under control. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would perhaps confirm that that is the position, and perhaps at the same time he could give us some information as to the number and type of multi-level marketing companies that have furnished the Price Controller with the information required in terms of the regulations, in other words, so that we can get some idea as to what multi-level organizations are operating and what type of goods they are handling.

The first matter I want to raise is that of import control and tariff protection. Now there has been some easing in the problem of obtaining import permits, since the change in Government policy last year, but there are one or two problems that still exist. Firstly, we believe that the maximum possible removal of import control must be proceeded with as soon as possible. There are many areas where import control is still imposed, and perhaps unnecessarily.

We also believe that where import control remains, the business sector must be given the earliest possible notice of the extent to which permits are going to be granted for the balance of this year and for 1974. It is always difficult enough for a business to do forward planning but particularly is it difficult to do its forward buying if it does not know what permits it is going to get over, say, the next 12 months. A lot of orders placed abroad are placed well ahead and it would certainly help considerably if the business sector knew what the position was going to be for the next 12 months. The hon. the Minister is not going to have any problems regarding the balance of payments position this year—at least we hope not; that does not appear to be the case—and therefore he would be taking no risks in so far as the reserves of the country are concerned if he were to announce as early as possible what the permit position is going to be for the balance of this year and for next year. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give us information in this connection.

The second aspect is the question of those industries which have lost or are going to lose the protection of import control and which have been given or are going to be given tariff protection. Now, we have always accepted on this side of the House that there is, in special cases, a case for protection of a limited category of industries in South Africa, industries that are essential to the national interest, industries that are established for the security of the State, industries that are subject to unfair competition from abroad, for example through dumping, and industries that are particularly export-orientated. We believe that these types of industries have to be protected. It is Government policy that they should be so protected, but it does appear that in some cases where the protection of import control has been withdrawn, the protection of tariff duties has not yet come into effect, and so you get a hiatus in the situation. You get a company or a manufacturer or an industry which has been established under the umbrella of import control, suddenly finding that import control has been removed, something we agree with. But it is one of these essential industries I have spoken about and it has not yet been given the protection of additional tariffs. What we would like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether this aspect is being watched because if not, the moment import control is removed, the local buyers import from overseas far, far beyond their immediate needs to protect themselves against the time when additional tariffs will be imposed on that particular type of goods. The net result is that for a period of time, anyway, the manufacturer is left holding the baby. I hope the Minister will ensure that there is synchronisation in respect of these special industries so that when import control is removed tariff protection will come into effect simultaneously.

Now I want to say just a short word on GATT. We have had long discussions in this House over the last few years on the question of GATT and particularly on its bindings. Every time we have raised the question of GATT we have been given a standard answer by the Government in the form of a question whether we have not heard of GATT and whether we have not heard of GATT bindings. Whenever we have said that some of these import control measures should be removed and that they should be replaced by tariffs, we have always been told it is not possible because of GATT bindings. However, we have never believed this to be the case. We believe that the Government has been, to an extent, sheltering behind this question of GATT bindings and has perhaps not been getting on with their job as efficiently as it should. However, last year a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. G. J. J. F. Steyn, Secretary for Commerce, to investigate the extent to which South Africa’s obligations under GATT are reconcilable to the country’s essential development needs as well as the steps which the Government can take to overcome any problems which its continued membership of GATT may present for the effective protection of local producers and manufacturers. The findings of this committee are very interesting indeed, because the committee concluded that a wide range of tariff commitments in respect of manufactured goods which the Government had assumed under GATT, as well as the fact that such a large number of South Africa’s customs duties on these goods have been bound against increases under GATT at particularly low levels, coupled with the difficult problem which the Government is experiencing in its efforts to negotiate releases from these obligations according to the prescribed GATT procedures, present a real obstacle to the country’s further sustained economic development and more particularly to its future industrial development. This would seem to accord with the thinking of the Government, but fortunately there is another paragraph which I find much more interesting—

I am sure the hon. the Minister has read this, because he published it as a statement. I merely bring this to the notice of the House so that it will be on record that the stand which we have taken for many years is reasonably well confirmed by this report.

There is one matter which is causing all of us in South Africa a great deal of concern. I refer to the sharp rise in our cost structure. We have had a great deal of debate over the last month or two in this House on the question of inflation and the question of the rising cost structure and I do not propose to continue with it today. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he, as the Minister of Economic Affairs in charge of the Departments of Commerce and Industries, is doing all he can and using his influence to the greatest possible extent to see that the costs of production are held at the lowest possible level. Is he doing what he can to see that the costs of selling and distribution are held to a minimum? I want to make the point that this year, for example, we had large increases in Railway tariffs, we had large increases in telephone charges, and we had large increases in postal tariffs, particularly those postal tariffs which affect commerce and industries, in respect of commercial circulars, and so on and so forth. These are all items which increase the cost of production of goods. We know that we have to pay taxes—they say few things are certain in life except death and then taxes —but is the hon. the Minister seeing to it that the impact of what has come to be called “administrative charges” is, in so far as commerce and industry is concerned, kept as low as possible so that the cost of goods can be kept as low as possible? I believe the hon. the Minister has a duty in this matter, and I believe that it is an essential part of his responsibilities to protect commerce and industry from the ravages of other Ministers. He has to apply all his ability to see that the impact of taxation legislation is such that it will do the least harm to commerce and industry with which the whole well-being of our country is concerned. It is his job to fight against any rises in costs, and it is his job to fight against any measures coming from the Government which are going to increase the prices to the eventual consumer. I believe that this is all part of the hon. the Minister’s job and that he has to fight his colleagues in the Cabinet, that he should not allow them to take some of the steps they are taking.

The Minister of Transport?

Yes, I know that one does not very often fight successfully with the hon. the Minister of Transport, but at least you must put up a fight. If the hon. the Minister loses he will have our commiseration. But I believe it is an essential task of a Minister of Economic Affairs to protect the economy from even his own Cabinet colleagues. It is his job to be able to convince them that what they are doing is wrong. If he does that successfully, he will perform a great public service by bringing the cost of living down.

I suppose one of the most important problems we have to face—and if one looks at the latest E.D.P. one’s views are reinforced—is the question of our exports. There have been two matters of significance since we have last discussed the question of exports in this House under this Vote. The six members of the Common Market have become nine, with Great Britain as the major new entry, and we have had the report of the Reynders Commission of inquiry into the export trade of the Republic of South Africa. May I at once offer my congratulations to Prof. Reynders and his commission upon the excellence of the report that they have produced. It is a wide-ranging report and it deals with the background of the problems of export, with the immediate position and with the future potential. I believe that these two volumes of the report are going to be a handbook for many years for those of us who are interested in exports. We are grateful to have this information at our disposal. I do not have the time, nor do I believe that there is a need for me to deal with this report in any detail, since those of us who are interested in it have read it. However, there are a number of issues upon which I want to comment. In doing so, I am indebted to Safto for the very excellent summary produced on the Reynders Commission’s report. When we are considering export generally, leaving out for a moment the many possible problems of the E.E.C., I think we find that, as the commission has said in its own words, what it did was not to—

This is an important facet, because now we have an endorsement of views which have been expressed by many of us previously and we have the endorsement of views after a complete investigation and examination have been made into all the aspects of exporting. As a result of this investigation, a great deal of basic thinking has, I believe, been crystallized. Many fundamental essentials have now been stated. Firstly, we have the thesis that the main task of export promotion rests squarely upon the shoulders of the private sector and that the Government and official bodies should make it easier for the exporter to sell in foreign markets. We entirely agree with this. To my dismay, I have found on the occasion of many visits I had to commercial representatives abroad, that the South African industrialist is not playing his full part in exporting. When he is asked to tender or to quote, he seldom does so. For example, I have seen a case where one of our officers abroad had sent out no less than 15 requests for tender prices to organizations in South Africa, upon which he received only two replies. This was considered to be pretty good. However, the Government has its part to play, and this part is emphasized in the report, and I hope that cognizance is going to be taken of it by the Government.

Secondly, the commission came out firmly behind the principle of exporting for profit and has recommended certain improvements to official incentives, some of which have already been introduced, whereby an exporter’s profit margin can be increased. Despite certain remarks about myself and Socialism last week, I subscribe fully to the fact that the profit motive is essential in exporting as it is in any other business. I am still of the opinion, and this is an opinion I have expressed in this House on many occasions, that the right way of encouraging people to export and to create a proper incentive, is to offer a direct tax rebate on profits made or profits arrived at through exporting. It is true that a number of suggestions are made, some of which have been implemented, and we hope that these are going to help.

Then we have the view of the commission—

We go along with that as a short-term plan, but I think the importance is in the second recommendation—

Here the commission stresses—

This, I believe, is a fair statement of the situation, with the emphasis on the fact that in the long term it is the export performance of the manufacturing industry that will be vital. I do not want to introduce a discussion on improved productivity and on the question of the utilization of labour in this particular debate, because it has been very widely canvassed in other debates, but I believe that unless we accept that productivity is number one priority for South Africa, all our plans for the future are going to fall by the wayside. I believe it is again the hon. the Minister’s task to use all possible influence he has with the Government to see that everything we have is diverted towards increasing productivity, because there lies the golden road.

I think I could sum up our reaction to the Revnders report best by using the words of Safto—

This, of course, is the crux of the whole issue. You can have commission after commission and report after report, but unless you get dynamic action, nothing is worthwhile. Now the responsibility lies squarely on the hon. the Minister. I am putting a lot of responsibility on his shoulders this afternoon, but they are broad; he can carry them. It is now his task and it is a wonderful opportunity for him, in the light of the Reynders Commission report, to really see to it that all the steps that were recommended are examined and put into practice at the earliest possible moment.

I want to say a few words about exports, following the entry of Great Britain to the E.E.C. I believe it is important that in this regard we get our thinking straight. It is probably true that at the moment such matters as currency crises, the development of multinational enterprises and the state of the economy in Europe and the U.S.A. can affect our exports far more than the formation or expansion of any trading groups. I think we forget this sometimes. We get frightened about the E.E.C., for example, forgetting that there are other factors which can affect our exports far more. The formation of a trading group has a twofold effect. On the one hand, trade can be diverted to the group because of the preferential treatment as between the countries comprising the group. But there is another side to the picture, i.e. that as a result of the fast economic growth of the group comprising the individual sectors, there are greater export opportunities for those countries which are outside the group. The economy of the group as we have seen with the E.E.C. has grown to such an extent that they have a potential for greater exporting from us that ever before. There is another factor, namely that the United States is pushing for another round of general tariff reductions similar to the Kennedy Round from which we benefited greatly. In last night’s Star there is a big headline “South Africa can gain in new deal trade”. I do not want to read the whole article, because I am sure the hon. the Minister is as conversant with it as I am, i.e. that these matters will be before Congress in the United States where Pres. Nixon is seeking powers to be able to enlarge the entire scope of world trade and particularly to let America have its rightful part. The under-developed and less-developed countries are going to be specially treated under this concept. It has been said in the United States that nothing will be done to harm particularly the under-developed countries. I know we are considered to be a developed country in terms of GATT, but I believe we have a good claim to fame in that we are not as developed as all that. We are somewhere in between. I believe it is these aspects of the E.E.C. that we should deal with when we deal with the question of our exports. We should regard the greater E.E.C. as an opportunity for growth in exports. I am optimistic about our position as far as Europe is concerned, as the hon. the Minister also is. My optimism is reinforced by the visit I made to the E.E.C. in September and also the visits I made to Great Britain and to Germany, where I was able to have discussions with respective governments on these matters which affect our trade. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for making facilities available to me when I was in Brussels. His department did a very good job for me there, and I had most interesting discussions with many people. Through his good offices I saw the heads of all departments that I wanted to meet. I found a number of interesting aspects about the Common Market. First of all, I found a genuine interest and sympathy in our problems. In many cases I found a very genuine understanding of our problems. It is true we are going to be in competition with people who want to export or with local producers who produce goods the same as our exports, but nevertheless I think we are in a very sound position in many areas. For example, our export of sherry, Cape apples and Outspan oranges are commodities which enjoy a very high consumer acceptance abroad. I would, by the way, like to see sherries marketed under a name, because if you speak to an Englishman and ask him what he drinks, he says “South African sherry”, and if you ask him what brand, he can never tell you and I think it is time we branded our sherry. I found that the quality, as the hon. the Minister said in this House this session, was the most important thing today. People are earning a lot of money abroad today. Their standard of living is rising every day and more and more people are getting into the position where they can buy our products. I believe that we have to export quality products, but at the same time we have to market them. Interesting things are happening in the field of marketing today. The British are still probably the best traders in the world, despite their problems. They had for two years been getting ready for their entry into the Common Market on 1st January this year. And what had they been doing? They were not only establishing their own representatives abroad, but have also bought into businesses; they were acquiring businesses and were setting up arrangements with local people who had the local know-how, the local expertise and the ready-made customers. In other words, instead of taking their product as an Englishman to France, they took it to a French organization which already had many customers on its books and thus things were made a lot easier for them. I think we have to think of these things. Our industrialists and our departments of Commerce and Industry have to view things on a broad platform and they have to see that these are the way things are being done overseas and that we have to follow them. These are the things we have to do if we want not only to maintain the exports we have, but to increase them so that we can meet the demands set by the development programme.

There is another interesting facet I would like to mention. Europe today is not the E.E.C. Since the advent of Mr. Nixon’s visit to China and Russia there is a complete change of thinking on the Continent. The avenues of trade between the West and behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain are becoming wide open. A year or two ago an American in Hong Kong, which as you know, Sir, is the official outlet for Red China, was not allowed to buy Chinese goods. Today you have the situation where one trade mission after another goes from the European Continent to China, Russia and the other curtain countries. Fiat, as you know, has set up an enormous plant valued at £30 million in Russia. They are going to put up plants in other Balkan countries. These countries have prospered since the war despite their system. They have recovered from the war and they are working. Now, I know we have problems. South Africa has political problems with these countries, but there is a certain amount of reciprocal trade between us. I hope that we are not going to be left behind in this trade which I am sure is going to develop between Western Europe and the countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain. It is not a subject I want to enlarge on unduly. There are problems. But businessmen are very enterprising people. When a businessman finds a problem he finds a way of overcoming that problem. It is similar to what some people do with taxation. We have new Income Tax Bills every year because somebody is always finding a loophole. Now, it is the same with exporting. There are patterns and there are methods and there are accepted things. The political life of a country and the trade life of a country are two separate things entirely. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will know this better than anybody else. You can get a person standing up and making a desk-stumping speech against the evil South Africa. That same evening he or his people are placing orders with us. This is the pattern of life. We know it and accept it. There are things happening in Eastern Europe today and in Red China which are important to the whole world industrially. People are visiting these countries. I was in Prague and Warsaw this year. The number of visitors were amazing. The standard of living is high. In Warsaw I came across a shop where you can only buy with foreign exchange. In that shop you can buy anything you can think of. There were things like toothpaste, Brylcream, perfume, whisky and motor-cars. They had a Mercedes motor-car on sale. Money is beginning to flow; the pattern is changing. I hope that we will in years to come not have to say that we did not do what we should have done to see to it that we get our share of the market, because export is still our lifeblood.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member touched on various aspects in a very responsible manner. I leave him in the hands of the hon. the Minister. I rise in order to touch on two aspects in the limited time at my disposal. In the first place I want to express a few thoughts on our bird islands or guano islands. I want to express the thought that these islands are a very great asset for our country today, but that we are not utilizing them correctly. Recently we dealt with legislation in this connection and if I remember correctly, there are about 45 of these bird islands at this stage off our coast-line which stretches for about 2 000 miles. These bird islands are today chiefly under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister himself. If I analyse the latest data correctly it is a fact that there is over-production on all these islands at present. All the bird guano produced there, is not used elsewhere. In the second place, if my information is correct, bird guano is today produced at a loss on the various islands. If I analyse the situation correctly production is taking place at a loss of R152 000. Furthermore it is true that all the elements contained in bird guano can be processed into artificial fertilizers. As a result of this situation, I believe that the time has arrived for us to take a fresh look at this large number of bird islands. As I have said, there are about 46 of them. I think that the time has arrived when we must utilize them with new imagination to the benefit of our country and also in the interests of our tourist industry.

In the first instance I want to mention the case of Robben Island itself. Sir, perhaps you will tell me immediately that the Minister does not have total jurisdiction over it. Previously Robben Island fell under the Department of Defence, and if my information is correct, it has fallen under the Department of Prisons since 1961. However, I have here an extract from a brochure drawn up recently by experts on the real atmosphere of this particular island, and this is applicable to many of the other bird islands along our coast-line today. I want to read it to hon. members. They say (and this is with regard to Robben Island) (translation)—

Later I shall show that there are a few other islands with similar features. Today this beautiful Robben Island is situated in the centre of Table Bay. From the island one has a view of Table Mountain and Lions Head on the one side. In my humble opinion, we should utilize the potential of this island quite differently in future, to the benefit of South Africa. At present the Sobukwe atmosphere of the prison administration hangs over this beautiful island. I think that the time has arrived for us to see this island and its potential from quite a different point of view.

I could continue in this vein and mention to you the other islands, Mr. Chairman. Those islands which are situated off the coast of my constituency alone, and with which I am familiar, include the following: Dassen Island, Jutten Island, Marcus Island, Malgas Island, Meeu Island, Schaapen Island and also Vondeling Island, which is situated directly opposite the Oudepos Syndicate. I think that this part of our coast-line in particular must, as the result of the development of the Sishen-Saldanha project, be viewed in a new light. In particular, the potential of these islands must be seen from another viewpoint.

For example I am thinking of an island such as Schaapen Island, in the beautiful surroundings of Langebaan. If my eyes do not deceive me, sea birds are today no longer productive there on as large a scale as at other places. This particular island received its name when the farmers of the Swartland took their rams there in the past at a certain time of the year. Today the major life on this island is not sea birds in the first instance, but a large number of white rabbits which have found their way there through the years and which today comprise the population of this island. It is an island which is situated in the mouth of the beautiful Langebaan Lagoon. I believe that we shall have to see the development of this island, and also its counterpart, Meeu Island on the other side, in a completely new light.

The other islands in this particular region will also be affected by the Saldanha project. I am thinking of Marcus Island, Malgas Island and Meeu Island. There is another island which will also be affected, namely Vondeling Island, which is situated directly opposite the Oudepos Syndicate. I really believe that we shall have to look at these islands in a new light in the future, because there is a potential here for South Africa which may be utilized a new.

Today I want to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister, and ask him whether it will not be possible to investigate by way of a new investigation how we can utilize these 46 bird islands. I realize that I am going to have difficulties as a result of what I have just said here, because our ecologists will immediately come forward and say that we would be harming nature and that we should leave these islands alone. Sir, I am not asking that all these 46 bird islands along our coast-line, which is almost 2 000 miles long, should be utilized in this way. We could provide for places to accommodate the ecologists as well, where justice could be done to their views and image in respect of these islands. However, I really want to ask that all these islands along our coast be seen in a new light. Particularly from the point of view of our tourist industry, we have a new potential here. Recently I had the privilege of visiting Malgas Island in the company of three Americans. I find it striking that these people really waxed lyrical about the potential of this island. They felt that if this island had been in their part of the world, it would have had tremendous potential for its surroundings. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible, since it is really he who has the jurisdiction over these islands, to appoint a committee, or to organize interested persons, to ascertain whether it would not be possible for us to come forward with a new policy and a new point of view. I do not want to chase the birds away from all these islands, but there are numerous cases where civilization has already encroached to such an extent that the bird-life has already been disturbed a great deal.

The second aspect I would like to touch on here, is the development of our fishing harbours, particularly on the west coast of our country. It is true that the department—and once again I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for this—has in recent years been undertaking new building projects at our fishing harbours, particularly on our west coast, where the fishing industry operates. For example, I am thinking of what is being done in the vicinity of Saldanha Bay itself in respect of the White fish industry and the rock lobster industry. I am thinking of St. Helena Bay, where there is the greatest concentration of fish factories and where millions of rand have been spent to make provision for this particular area in that regard. A short distance from there we have the mouth of the Berg River. And so I can continue, Mr. Chairman, right up to Walvis Bay. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moorreesburg has done it a second time; for the second time I agree entirely with the comments he has made in a debate. I think the contribution he is making is a most valuable one. Today I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, under his Vote, one or two matters of importance to commerce and industry. The first is the question of import control. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that the Minister of Finance has indicated a desire to motivate the economy and to stimulate it as far as possible. He has indicated, too, that the balance of payments situation today is no longer serious; in fact, it is entirely favourable. I should, therefore, like to ask whether the Minister of Economic Affairs would indicate as early as possible to commerce and to industry what the next round of allocations of import permits will be. This is particularly necessary because, as the economy picks up, it will be necessary to have a replacement of goods. Unless traders, manufacturers and industrialists can place their orders, be they consumer goods or replacement capital goods, as early as possible, one will have a time-lag in which we will find a stop-go reaction again. This is most important to the importers in commerce. In the case of industrialists, it has been stated again that import control having been relaxed, it will be the policy of the Government as far as possible to protect certain industries which require protection in this country. If there is any confusion between the two divisions within the Minister’s department, and import controls are relaxed and at the same time these particular industries are not given early protection, then one will find that the importers climb in, that they flood the market with goods in competition with the manufacturer, and by the time these protective tariffs do begin to work their way through the system, the manufacturer finds that his machines are without programmes.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will make reference to an announcement which was made in a local newspaper recently that the Government intends, in the foreseeable future, to press for an 80% local content for South African-manufactured motor vehicles. It was indicated that there would be a certain time-lag, but that the intention was to press for an 80% local content. Having regard to the situation as it is at the moment—the fact that the prices of motor vehicles have never been higher and that the public are concerned not only about the cost of motor vehicles but the cost of motor spares and services and also the impact on inflation generally—I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this country to make known his intention and to comment upon the foreseeable results in detail.

Then, Sir, I would like to discuss very briefly what I would like to term succinctly the Persian carpet racket. You will be aware, Sir, if you study Press advertisements, of a tendency which is becoming discernable throughout South Africa, and that is the tendency to stress the importance of acquiring real goods, objects d’art, antiques, portraits and, specifically, Persian rugs as a hedge against inflation. But, Sir, here we come up against an Aladdin’s cave, Ali Baba and the 40 000 suckers, the Arabian Nights. It occurred to me only recently that the advertisements which offer thousands and thousands of so-called genuine Persian rugs are following a specific pattern, which I believe is an unhealthy pattern.

Persian rogues.

I have in front of me a full-page advertisement which reads as follows—

“Boereverneukery”.

Yes, Sir, it could be a “boereverneukery”; it could be a misuse of the Transportation Act, but it is perfectly clear that the public are not being told that in most cases inferior articles are being sold as Persian rugs, in the same way as cheap wines are sometimes sold under a French nom de plume or as “champagne”. Sir, I believe that the public of South Africa should be made aware of this practice and that the Minister himself should investigate this situation, because the impression is being given that tens of thousands of carpets are always on offer at liquidation sales. If this is the case then the question of import control must be of interest to the Minister. On the other hand, it would appear too that the questionable practice of advertising goods as being what they are really not should also enjoy the attention of the hon. the Minister. This is a practice which is not only South African, but is international. In other countries they have been able to stem the tide by a tightening up of their regulations concerning exhibits and sales after hours, and declarations as to when a sale is genuinely a liquidation sale or a sale in a deceased estate. This matter has been brought to the attention of Chambers of Commerce throughout South Africa. I know it has been raised with the Minister’s department. He is up against diabolically clever marketeers, but on the other hand one can be quite certain that if he studies the overall pattern, he will find, for instance, that people who say they are closing down are only closing down in Cape Town; they then take their goods by truck to another part of the town and reopen there and have another sale. This is a time when we value our possessions today and the man in the street has never been more gullible, because of the new-found income that has come into his possession, and I think the time has come for the Minister and the department to give this serious consideration. Just to show how gullible people are, I want to quote from an article headed “How the magic carpetmen came to town”, which says the following—

This rug had been valued only the day before by a panel of experts as being worth £1 000. The Minister should, I think, see whether he can do anything to assist the genuine trader and the genuine buyer and the public, who are not skilled in these things. I know that he will tell me about the legal adage caveat emptor, that the buyer should beware, but equally there are some practices which should be brought to the Minister’s attention, and this is one of them.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens ventured to discuss a subject which few of us, perhaps, would venture to discuss, namely the selling of Persian carpets. I think that in the merchandizing of this type of commodity in particular, the good will in course of time, distinguish itself from the poor, and the firm with a high degree of integrity will be able to hold its own against the one which is bent on fleecing the public. I think that the same applies to political parties. The public learns to get wise to political parties, too, and one need only look at the achievements of political parties to see that the good party is the one which enjoys the most support of the public in the long run.

Since the hon. member was talking about objectivity, I should also just like to break a lance today on behalf of an institution which will be 30 years old next year, namely the Bureau of Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch. This institution has in the course of the years collected a substantial amount of knowledge and proved techniques. I think it has also played an important role in helping the economists in South Africa with their training, people who at a later stage have done valuable work in other fields, particularly in business life, but also for the State. Since we are now aiming at the highest level of productivity and the most effective utilization of capital and manpower, I wonder whether the State could not lend a helping hand on a small scale to this institution at Stellenbosch. I think it would be a feather in the cap of the hon. the Minister if this institution, when it becomes 30 years old in 1974, were able to make an announcement in this regard. This institution relies chiefly on a small subsidy from the University itself, a subsidy from which is paid the salaries of two of the people who work there. Certain offices are also put at their disposal, but apart from that they are really financed by donations received from the private sector. I think that on occasion, when the State wants to tackle certain projects in respect of which the Bureau is capable of undertaking objective research, it should make use of the manpower which already exists there and that the State should help them to extend their activities further by having these plans or aims tested on the basis of objective reports on the part of the Bureau. I believe that this would not only help the State in that it would not be necessary to employ its own manpower for this purpose, but in the second place, better use could be made of the data, the techniques and the manpower which already exist. I think that this would also be a help, particularly here in the Boland where we would like to see the State announcing a comprehensive project of how the Boland will appear in future industrially, particularly if we consider the pattern of the distribution of the Brown and White population, if the bureau could be well employed in this connection. I believe that in this way we would help them to extend substantially the valuable service which they have already rendered in the past.

I want to return to what was said by the hon. member for Parktown when he pointed out the tremendous possibilities which exist in our trade with Europe. If one considers the trade pattern of South Africa over the past ten years, it is sriking that in the case of our trade with Britain our exports have approximately doubled and our imports have also approximately doubled. In the case of our export to Africa this amounted to approximately R119 million in the year 1962. In the past year it was more than twice as much, namely about R250 million. Our imports from Africa have also approximately doubled over the past ten years, namely from R70 million to R152 million. If however we consider our trade with Europe—I refer to the EEC—it is striking that while our exports to Europe have only doubled, namely from R181 million to R395 million, our imports from Europe have risen by more than three times the original amount, namely from R191 million to R704 million. Particularly now that Britain is also a member of the European Economic Community, this market in my opinion, will be of even greater importance to us.

When we look at the great and mighty future we have particularly in respect of exports to Europe it is essential for us to take into account what is going to happen in our immediate vicinity as well. I have already pointed out that at the present stage we import goods to the value of approximately R152 million per annum from Africa. As against this, our exports to Africa amount to approximately R250 million per annum. As far as our export trade is concerned, we are therefore in a very favourable position as far as Africa is concerned. Thus I believe that it is in our own interests that the maximum economic development should take place, not only in our own Bantu areas, while they still form part of South Africa and also when the time arrives when they are perhaps no longer part of the Republic, but also in the other states to the north of us and in our midst.

I wonder whether South Africa and particularly our own multi-national companies could not set an example in this respect to the world. If we think back to the role played by the United States of America in South America and also in Europe and particularly in post-war Europe, we realize that in time, a feeling developed against the mighty United States of America. In South America and in France in particular, it was felt that the U.S.A. was making colonies of these areas. I think that whereas Africa is now de-colonized, it is imperative that in our own Bantu areas or in our neighbouring states it should not be felt that South Africa or other Western countries are trying to colonize these areas by means of their financial power.

In this connection one South African industrialist in particular has perhaps set an example to the world in the sense that by means of partnership he has given the inhabitants of the countries in which he operates, the opportunity to participate with him in his undertakings on a virtually equal basis. The problem which exists here in Africa, is that the inhabitants of these states are not capable of paying out of her own pockets for a share in that undertaking which is established there. Now I wonder whether the time is not perhaps ripe to do something about that, and we shall have to do his before too strong a feeling of nationalization arises with heads of government in these countries, and before the statement made by Chief Buthelezi, when he said that he is not afraid of White capital in Zululand because he could nationalize it one day when it suits him, materializes. If we want to prevent industrialists in the Western countries and in South Africa from having any fears to investigate in these areas, and if we want to prevent their economic progress being delayed in this way, we should perhaps make them an offer. In this offer we must not only give the employees of the companies which are being established in these regions, the opportunity of earning salaries themselves, but also to receive bonusses by way of share allocations in these undertakings. This can be done in the same way as the payment of bonusses in our own undertakings which exist in South Africa.

In this way, those people in particular who are permanent employees of these companies, will know that even though it may take many years, they can obtain a substantial interest in the undertakings which are established in their areas. If this approach is adopted not only by the multinational groups in South Africa but also by the multi-national groups of other countries, and if this scheme can be introduced at an early stage as the pattern of development, we shall perhaps be able to strike a blow for capitalism in Africa. In this way we will be able to ensure that the feeling of socialism, which perhaps tends to be stronger in these countries which do not have large amounts of capital, will be replaced at an early stage by the entrepreneuring spirit of capitalism. I think that it would be to our eternal credit if we in South Africa could take the lead in this sphere. In this way we could let these people know at an early stage that when we establish business undertakings there, we are not colonizing, but are engaged in assisting progress in their countries and ensuring that they will share in that progress and that it will take place on a permanent basis. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown made a speech today which in my opinion was very neutral. He expressed virtually no criticism, he only addressed a few appeals to the hon. the Minister. However, I want to come back to things which he said previously. What he said previously, concerns the broad view of the United Party on the economic development of South Africa. I want to refer to the statement he made some time ago on the influx of labour and how we should use labour. I want to tell him that the basic difference between this side of the House and that side of the House as far as the future economic development of South Africa is concerned, is that they see South Africa as a totally unitary State, while we do not. They see South Africa as one country with 20 million people. That is their standpoint and that is how they want to develop. If they want to develop in accordance with that method and if they want to see it that way, then I cannot see that even their policy of federation will ever offer them a solution, because the economic laws in the whole process will cause it to come to grief.

We do not see the economic development of South Africa as a unitary State and as the development of a country with 20 million people. Our whole policy and our whole programme of development is reflected in the things we do and want to do. As hon. members know, we see the development of the Republic of South Africa as the final development of 11 states. This is reflected in our whole programme. This year the maps were published on which the final boundaries are indicated and where there will be final separation in the physical and political domains. One sees it in the taxation incentive measures contained in the proposals by the hon. the Minister of Finance through which companies are encouraged to move to the border areas. A White Paper was published as far as labour arrangements are concerned and the way labour is to be utilized in South Africa. Then also, the political development of the Bantu areas has reached the stage where they are virtually complete. They need not go much further before they are granted complete independence. All these things are part of our whole economic development.

Economic independence as well?

Of course! If they become independent, they become independent. I shall deal later with the point the hon. member mentioned a moment ago. We hear so much from that side about our policy failing in every aspect, that our policy cannot work. We hear it time after time. I want to tell them that it is not true. To substantiate this statement that our policy is failing economically, for example, they use as an argument the Black people who work in South Africa. They stake everything on one little thing, namely 1978. For example they say that if one Black man remains here in 1978, our policy has failed. I want to tell them that that is not true; we have never said that the success of our policy will only be measured in numbers. Numbers are important; we are striving through our policy to have the maximum number on both sides—in other words, to have the maximum number of Black people in their own areas and the minimum number here in our area. But if we look briefly at the report of the IDC., we find that the industries established in the border areas and in the Bantu homelands—Only those assisted by the I.D.C.—have supplied employment for 30 600 people. If we add the others—I do not have the exact figure— it amounts to approximately 120 000 Bantu who have now been settled in border areas and have been provided with work there.

[Inaudible.]

No, it is true. If we process this and, taking into account the families, multiply the figure by five, we get the position that there are between 500 000 and 600 000 Bantu who are now living in the homelands as a result of our policy and are helping to develop the economy of the homelands. It is therefore quite clear that we are really progressing with our policy. The situation has now arisen where it is not just we who are investing here, but people from overseas are also investing there. I do not know whether hon. members heard this morning what the manager of the Bantu Investment Corporation said in his report in regard to the number of overseas companies that are applying to invest there through the Corporation.

For example there is the Swiss company which is going to erect a large factory. I think it is in KwaZulu that they are going to invest. The fact that we take an interest, results in interest being shown overseas and in a change in the image of the homelands. The hon. member for Hillbrow talks about “ideology gone mad”. If this is “ideology gone mad”, then I do not know. In the homeland of Lebowa a capital is being built. They call it Lebowa Ghomo. In that capital millions are going to be invested by Rand municipalities which will provide housing. What is happening there, is that as soon as one gets this kind of thing, i.e. the development of large cities, one has development of the retail trade. As soon as one has development of the retail trade, one lays the basis of one’s middle class which is such an important factor for development in those areas.

In passing, I just want to say that, while the hon. member referred to economic independence, Sir, there is not a single country in the world which is economically independent. Every country is economically dependent on another country because it must obtain some material or other from another country. All countries are therefore inter-dependent. Here in Africa we have the situation where we will all be importing from one another, and that we will be inter-dependent on the Black countries, for example we could possibly make more use of their labour. But the person who says that the Black countries are not going to develop economically or may not become strong enough economically, does not know what is going on and is living in a fool’s paradise.

I want us briefly to consider our own homelands to see what they look like in the modern economic idiom we use today. I have here a table published in the Financial Trade Review and drawn up by Professors Van der Merwe and Lombard. This table gives the full data up to 1970. They give the gross domestic product, etc., and divide it between the various homelands. I have processed the data until the end of 1972 and here one has interesting figures. The gross domestic product for South Africa up to the end of last year, 1972, was R15 373 000 000. I extended the figures which appear in the table proportionally until the end of 1972. It is interesing to note that 9% of this gross domestic product belongs to the homelands themselves. KwaZulu comes first with R547 million, then comes the Transkei with R449 million, Bophuthatswana, R216 million, Basuto Kwa Kwa, R215 million, Lebowa R182 million, the Ciskei R111 million, Swazi R94 million, Gazankulu R98 million and Venda R69 million. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House identify ourselves immediately with the idea expressed by the hon. member for Vasco, namely that the Government should lend financial aid to the Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research. I think this body is doing very good work, very valuable work, and therefore we support his idea. The hon. member did not go as far as this side of the House would have gone, but he did plead for a sort of capitalist system for the development of under-developed countries. I think he actually had the development of the reserves in mind. I want to tell the hon. member that the policy of this side of the House is that unless one uses White capital and initiative for the development of the reserves, one will never be able to succeed with any policy.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg made his usual original speech in the House this afternoon. I want to congratulate him on it, for it is always a joy to listen to him. He is a person who thinks in an original manner and who is an idealist. I often wonder what he is doing on that side of the House. Surely he ought to be sitting on this side. I also want to refer briefly to my friend the hon. member for Pietersburg, who, I believe, also made a moderate and very good speech this afternoon. He knows we differ widely with his approach. He is correct in saying that we on this side of the House are advocating an economic unitary state, in contrast to the idea of the Nationalist Party. That remains our difference, and we believe that in the end even the members of the Nationalist Party will endorse our ideas.

I want to refer briefly to a statement which the hon. member for Wonderboom made during the no-confidence debate. I would very much like to have it on record that what he said, is completely wrong. I am sorry that he, a lawyer, brought such statements before the House. In the course of his speech on federation I made an interjection and said, “How does it fit in in South-West?” To that he replied—

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I do want to refer very briefly to the contents of the minority report, which was signed by the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Durban North. I am referring to the minority report of the Select Committee, and I quote from a newspaper report on it, which read as follows (translation)—

And so it went on. In other words, the impression created by the hon. member for Wonderboom in this House was completely wrong. I would like to have that on record.

Now I want to deal very briefly with the report by the Fishing Commission. It was tabled at the end of the previous session. I regard it as a very important document.

†I think that much of the information that is given here is extensive and of much interest to us in Parliament. I believe that one can criticize this report. Unfortunately, because of the rules of this House, one has not got as much debating time as one should like to have to debate reports that are tabled unless a special opportunity is given.

*There is another reason. There are Bills which will come before the House shortly, and for that reason I will not comment on certain parts of the report today. I only want to say that our criticism during the past few years of the state of affairs in the fishing industry has been quite justified. There is a lack of research. There is ineffective control over our fish resources and there is no central authority.

†Those are exactly the points that I have been making in this House since I first came here in 1966. I now want to refer briefly to the Viskor Report. The Viskor Report which came out recently says that in South Africa the pelagic fish situation has improved. But they say that there is an unhappy feature, namely that there was a reversal in the rise in the pilchard catch. Were it not for an exceptional run of anchovy on the west coast the pelagic fish quotas would not have been fulfilled on the west coast.

Then I want to refer to the South-West African catch. Here, i am pleased to say, there is a slight increase in the pilchard catch. Last year it was 45,6% of the total catch while this past year it was 69,6%. I am very pleased that this improvement has taken place. But I would remind you, Sir, that the quotas that are in existence in South-West Africa at the moment are something like a third of what the quotas were only three years ago. The catches of pilchards that are taking place there now are something like a fifth or a sixth of what they were three years ago in South-West Africa. While there has been a partial recovery I think that we should look at this recovery very carefully before we go too fast ahead and award greater quotas. The same applies to “kreef”. There is an improvement in the position on the west coast. Our quotas, which are substantially smaller than they were for years and years, have been filled, and also at Luderitz. I welcome both of these developments and I hope that they presage an improved situation in both the pelagic fish industry and also the “kreef” industry.

*Sir, I also want to refer to Dr. Lochner. All I want to say about Dr. Lochner this afternoon is this: At the end of last year he wrote as follows in an article in Die Vaderland (translation)—

†Then, Sir, I would like to show to the Minister the graph that I received from Dr. Lochner—I believe he has got one as well —which shows the collapse of the Californian sardine resource. There you will see it in 1944 at its peak, then down to 1947, then a partial recovery, and look where it is in 1957. That pilchard resource does not exist any more today. Here is a graph of the West Cape resource, and you will see also that from a high point in 1936, in 1970, in spite of a small recovery, it is still on the downward trend. Then, lastly, Sir, here is the South-West African resource where the downward trend continues. There may have been a partial recovery last year, but if any notice is to be taken of what Dr. Lochner has said, quoting other pilchard resources also in the world, then once a resource starts to collapse it can never recover unless the Government is prepared to take drastic measures. While the Government has taken formidable steps, it has not yet taken drastic measures. Sir, year after year I have brought to the attention of this Committee the situation in the fishing industry. I cannot do this year after year, for many reasons, one of the reasons being that I get no chance to speak on other subjects. But year after year I have issued warnings …

You get so little support.

I say to the Government: “Go ahead; you have your own policy; you have decided to ignore warnings that have come from this side of the House and from others outside, but if you break the pilchard resource, particularly of South-West Africa, as you have broken the pilchard resource of the West Coast, then do not cry over spilt milk; the blame will be fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government”.

Sir, I should like to refer to what is known as the rationalization of the fish resource in South-West Africa, and more particularly to a company which is really a consortium, known as SWAPROM. It is described in the recent Financial Gazette as a company that arises from a rationalization of the fishing industry. It consists of the following companies: SWAFILS. SEASWA, SARUSAS, and the interests of the Willem Barendsz. As the result of this combination, 300 000 tons of quotas are worked by two land-based factories at Walvis Bay, and they are the factories of SEASWA and SWAFILS. Sir, let us have a look at the details of this transaction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it will unfortunately not be possible to reply to all the representations of the hon. member for Simonstown, but it was interesting to listen again to the “young fighting fisherman” of Simonstown. The hon. member saw fit to refer to the report of the Select Committee. Sir, it is a fact that this Committee unanimously found that the charge of the hon. member against the then Deputy Minister of Community Development (at present Minister) were totally unfounded. This report states no fewer than three times that the charge was completely unfounded. Two hon. members on that side, the hon. members for Transkei and Durban North, served on the Select Committee. I really expected the hon. member to stand up today, or whenever he was speaking, and apologize to the hon. the Minister, because you must remember, Sir, that we have witnessed the phenomenon of this talkative member being exceptionally silent this sitting. With all the other prophets of doom, they are exceptionally silent—they who, with prophetic words, predicted the total collapse of the fishing industry. They were actually hoping and praying it would happen.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to say that?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member must not feel hurt now. I say that if that hon. member is being honourable, he must stand up and apologize to the Minister. …

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that?

Order! The hon. member is not alleging that the hon. member is dishonourable. He is making a statement which is absolutely permissible. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members on that side would do well to read the report which was supported by their own members, and then they must decide whether the findings were justified or not. If the members of the Opposition do not want to do so, then it is time for the voters of Simonstown to decide whether they are satisfied with a member who is repudiated in this House no fewer than three times, and of whom it is said that his statements are completely unfounded. I am able to report that things are going exceptionally well with the fishing industry of South-West Africa and of South Africa, thanks to this hon. Minister, thanks to the hon. Minister of Community Development, thanks to Industry and thanks to the Sea Fisheries Division, which has done tremendous work and carried out a thorough research study to evaluate and study our fishing resources. As a result it was found that the fishing resources along the South-West African coast increased in mass by 29 from the year 1971 to the year 1972. As a result of this increase the Sea Fisheries Division thought fit to recommend that the split quotas, as far as pilchard catches are concerned, should be increased from 40% to 50%, for which we are grateful and which we agree with. There is an absolute abundance of fish, Sir. Last year was a record year for canning. This year the fishing industry envisages producing no fewer than one million cartons more than last year. The total pilchard quota for 1973 has been fixed at 456 000 tons as against 367 000 tons last year, and we are optimistic and full of confidence that there will be no problems. Sir, if I were to have the choice of listening either to this hon. member and the prophets of doom or to the people who do the research and know what they are talking about, I would choose to give my support to the Sea Fisheries Division, and I again want to thank them.

Secondly, I want to request the hon. the Minister’s attention for an aspect about which the hon. member for Moorreesburg and I are apparently on the same wavelength, i.e. the islands at present being controlled by the State. The hon. member referred to the 46 islands. I should just like to point out that on a previous occasion I have already referred to this aspect in detail, and I do not again want to tire you with all the particulars, but it is interesting to note that only seven of these islands annually furnish economic quantities of guano. Then there are an additional nine islands that are periodically scraped, sometimes once a year and sometimes once in two years or more, depending upon the quantity of guano there. Then there are an additional 17 islands where no guano is produced and which is not inhabited by any seals. I want to support the hon. member for Moorreesburg. I really think that these non-productive islands could very profitably be transferred either to Nature Conservation and Tourism or to private bodies for the promotion of tourism. Over and above the said 46 islands, there are another six islands along the coast of South-West Africa, which are actually South-West Africa territory and on which seals are also found. There are a further fives spots on land where seals are also encountered.

I now want to request the Minister’s attention and refer to the production of guano, and the production and processing of seal products by the State. As has already been mentioned, about 4 000 tons of guano is produced annually. Only 2 500 tons is produced by the State, and 1 500 tons by private bodies. These 2 500 tons of guano produced by the State result in a loss of R152 000. The seal products ensure a profit of R65 000. I therefore want to advocate that both these bodies be transferred to private initiative, either by way of tenders or by way of mutual arrangement, though without relinquishing control of any of the islands. I am advocating this because we would then have the State Guano Islands Division with its competent staff, boats and other equipment, available to assist the Sea Fisheries Division with the very necessary implementation of control measures. It is absolutely essential that drastic control measures be implemented. There is a great deal of work, and that this is necessary, is clear if we think of the crayfish resources, the pelagic fish and trawling resources, the sea-birds, the seals, etc.

It must also be remembered that organic fertilizers were absolutely essential years ago, though very scarce. At the time it was necessary for the State itself to exploit these guano resources, because at the time the private entrepreneurs did not have the capacity to do so and the exploitation of those resources would have been too expensive an undertaking for them. However, today private bodies are able to exploit the resources successfully. There is a very good export market for guano. There are sufficient fertilizers of all kinds available for all sectors of the South African agricultural industry, and I therefore do not think that anyone would be adversely affected if guano were to be handed by private undertakings. In fact, I think that such a step could only be beneficial to industry, the Sea Fisheries Division and everyone concerned.

I believe that the boats, and all the staff at present being used for this purpose, have a tremendously wide field to cover. I want to point out that it has been claimed that fish were dumped at Walvis Bay a few weeks ago. I hope it is not true, but if we could have a permanent patrol service there, this would be a very good deterrent.

It is, in addition, very important to note that at present we have a whole lot of concessionaries for clubbing seals, etc. There is not sufficient control there either, however, and the division would every successfully be able to handle these functions and be a very effective aid to the Sea Fisheries Division if my plea were granted a hearing.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind you that the hon. member for Omaruru is the very hon. member who, some years ago, denied words which I had quoted in this House. At the time I quoted from the minutes of a meeting held in the office of the then Minister of Economic Affairs. I quoted from those minutes that he had asked Minister Haak for the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate the fishing industry at Walvis Bay and Luderitz. His reason was that there had been serious complaints through the years about problems, about corruption, bribery and (translation)—

As I have said, when I quoted this extract from the minutes in this House, he denied that it had been his intention to ask for the appointment of a commission of investigation! He was, however, speaking about another matter!

†I referred to a consortium in South-West Africa known as SWAPROM. The estimated profit of SWAPROM during the past financial year was R3 million, of this 36 or R1,1 million will go to SARUBAR (Pty.) Ltd., which is an amalgamation of the Willem Barendsz and the SARUSAS interest. Of the SARUBAR profit, SARUSAS will in turn get 41% for doing nothing whatsoever, but enjoy the fruits of a fishing licence. Who or what is SARUSAS? None other than those old established fishing companies, those old pioneers of the fishing industry, those old sea-salts, SANLAM, with a 46,9% holding; General Mining, with a 18,7% holding; Volkskas, with a 12,5% holding; Federale Volksbelegging, with a 4,25% holding and Boesmanlandsontwikkelingskorporasie, with a holding of 4.25%. As a matter of interest, in case my figures have to be checked, I call as my authority the hon. member for Namaqualand, Mr. Gaffie Maree. According to an extract from the companies register he and his M.P.C. were directors a year ago. Perhaps he will be able to substantiate what I have said. All these companies in this consortium were assisted financially by the I.D.C. which has a small holding in SARUSAS. One of the small share holders in SARUSAS, with a 10% holding, is Westies Minerale. Westies Minerale were responsible for SARUSAS getting the concession of not one, but two fishing licences.

Fishing licences with a quota of 90 000 tons each. Why did they get this concession? Westies Minerale had a mining grant and the number of that grant is M46/3/51, covering an area of the Skeleton Coast now registered in the name of SARUSAS. This small company, Westies, was in high hopes of making a fortune. In December, 1964, Rocky Point Ontwikkelingsmaatskappy, the predecessor of SARUSAS, took options on the individual holdings of the Westies shares, secured during the option period by a cession to SARUSAS of the mining grant. What were the prospects of this company? First of all, it was a R2 million public company which was to be formed. They would build a harbour at Rocky Point, a fish-processing plant and a salt industry. The company would also take part in prospecting for diamonds, and would otherwise utilize the mining grants which had been awarded to Westies. On 29th August, 1966, SARUSAS, which was formerly the Rocky Point Ontwikkelingsmaatskappy, renewed its option to take over the mining grant until January, 1968. The option was duly exercised. Now I want to quote from the minutes of a meeting of the SARUSAS company which was held on 5 August, 1965, in Johannesburg. They show that SARUSAS was at that time, in 1965, making elaborate plans to develop the north coast of South-West Africa. In fact, they set up investigating committees to consider the possibility of building a harbour, the fishing prospects, the iron-ore deposits, diamonds, seaweed, minerals, salt and oil, and even to explore the possibility of developing it as a tourist centre. Westies, the little company in South-West Africa, deeply in debt, obviously thought that by joining up with SARUSAS and by participating with them, SARUSAS would also pay their debts and that they would be in on a large-scale development venture, with powerful business partners. I think I should at this stage tell hon. members that it was at about this time that a commission to inquire into the fishing industry in South-West Africa was appointed under the chairmanship of the present Minister of Community Development, Mr. A. H. du Plessis. The minutes of the SARUSAS meeting to which I referred were dated May, 1965, and the commission was appointed on 17th June, 1965. The commission’s report was signed on 30th November, 1966, and was tabled in South-West Africa in 1967. Let us have a look at the findings of that commission. I quote from paragraph 69 of the report. They said—

The reason for this suggestion was that there would be new advantages for South-West Africa. Paragraph 71 of the report states—

The first advantage was to put the white fish industry on a sound economic basis and the second one was to develop a deep sea harbour on the northern part of South-West Africa at a place known as Möwe Bay. There they were to establish a growth point. This South-West African commission recommended further that both licences could be exploited immediately from Walvis Bay with the assistance of existing factories and that the control over and the right of ownership in the proposed harbour after completion would be transferred free of cost to the South-West African Administration. All the initial profits from the licences were to be used for the full defrayal of the construction costs of the harbour. Strangely enough, there were other people who also had similar ideas at the same time that this commission was formulating its ideas. They also had the idea of a growth point. By a remarkable coincidence and with amazing and intelligent anticipation they, the business partners in SARUSAS, shortly before the commission of inquiry under Mr. A. H. du Plessis reported, had considered this very thing. They had in fact preplanned for just such a venture the year before and here was the Du Plessis Commission recommending precisely the same thing. SARUSAS was naturally a tailor-made applicant for the licences when they were advertised. In actual fact they got two licences—not one licence—the next year! Factory ships continued to fish off the South-West African coast and a further licence was issued to a Witvis consortium. In March last year the then Deputy Minister, the present Minister of Community Development, the same Mr. Du Plessis, told me in answer to a question that the reason why SARUSAS had been granted not one but two fishing licences with a 180 000 ton quota in September, 1967, was that they had advanced a specific claim for getting the licences, namely their then existing rights to exploit certain minerals, the creation of a growth point, a harbour, access roads and an airstrip and all sorts of things at Möwe Bay in northern South-West Africa. He then went further in his answer and said that SARUSAS’s claim was related to its mining and prospecting rights stretching over a ten-mile strip parallel to the sea about ten miles south of Möwe Bay up to the 18° latitude south. Strangely enough, that is exactly the same area covered by Westies mining grant! Westies’ mining grant had been its principal asset and had been instrumental in getting Westies a 10% in the participation in SARUSAS for the quota of 180 000 tons. What is the situation today? Poor Westies participate to the extent of 10% of 36% of the whole SWAPROM operation. I believe that even the cash that was promised to Westies by its powerful business partners, with which it was to pay its debts, is still forthcoming.

What is your point?

My point is that this is the fate of the small man if he gets involved with powerful business partners such as Sanlam, General Mining, Federale Volksbeleggings and Volkskas, assisted by their very professional legal advisers who also, I may say, acted for Westies and its powerful business partners at the same time in negotiating the deals, and are themselves shareholders in SARUSAS. How has this all come about? On 14th February, 1972, I was told that the original two SARUSAS quotas of 90 000 tons each plus a research quota, of which I did not know, of 6 000 tons, which was all to be temporarily processed at Walvis Bay, by existing factories, was amended by the withdrawal of the research quota. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow up on what the hon. member for Simonstown said. I think the hon. the Minister will probably reply to the criticism.

I do not think so.

I think that if this hon. member rather incorporated his efforts and his love of the fishing industry in a favourable attitude towards the department, he could perhaps do this department a greater service …

It has nothing to do with the department.

… than he is now doing.

I want to hasten to get to my point. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Moorreesburg who can wax so very lyrical when he is travelling up the west coast. It seems to me he does not travel by boat, by car or by plane, it seems as if he simply travels with the wind. He starts down here and before one knows it he is sailing into Walvis Bay. I think that if I could ever take him beyond the Orange River to my constituency, which also lies on the west coast, he would have even more reason to wax lyrical. That is why I find this point of contact with the hon. member today. I actually want to begin where he ended, i.e. at the fishing harbours of the west coast which the department is developing. I understand that a few fishing harbours have already been developed such as those of Saldanha, St. Helena Bay and Berg River Mouth. I want to express the hope that this process of development of fishing harbours will continue right up the west coast and that the development will also get to my constituency, i.e. Luderitz. This west coast area and the adjacent rustic areas have meant a great deal to our country in recent years. As a result of the fishing industry it is in fact, already of great value. It stretches from here in the south up to Walvis Bay. Because of that the department regards it as being important for these fishing harbours to be developed. But the adjacent rural areas are no less important to our economy. In this connection I just want to remind hon. members briefly of the mining complex of Namaqualand, around Springbok, Okiep and Nababiep, with the strong possibility of a great deal more expansion in this area in the future, probably in the foreseeable future. As we get closer to the Orange River, we have the State diggings. We have Oranjemund and the diamond mines further along in the South-West area falling in my constituency. About 60 miles into the interior we have another mine, i.e. Rosh Pinah with its zinc mine and by-products. Further up we have Luderitz with its fishing industry and also Walvis Bay with its fishing industry. We could therefore, probably rightly, take a serious look at the west coast in the context of its economic position. The fact is that management boards or municipalities of these fishing towns, if I may call them that, cannot always scoop off the best, the cream, when development is commenced with. When something takes place there, as took place in Luderitz as well, i.e. the slump in the crayfish industry, the municipal affairs and economic conditions of these towns suffer as a result. I now want to put it this way: If these fishing harbours were to be developed, it would cost a great deal of money. I want to advocate that these fishing harbours should therefore be used on a multi-purpose basis in the future and not exclusively for fishermen and fishing boats, but also for light traffic and light transport, possibly passenger transport, and also for the transport of fuel that is so necessary to the far-lying areas. We know that water transport is usually cheaper than land transport. Many of these areas do not have good transport, or they are very far off, and it costs a great deal to get stuff there. I am now thinking, for example, of the southern portion of South-West Africa. Their fuel supply goes via Walvis Bay, while it could possibly go via Luderitz. Walvis Bay actually lies hundreds of miles from there, and from there fuel must be brought by lorry and railway bus transport and eventually costs much more when it gets to the depots where it is delivered. I think there is something here we could take a look at to give these small places, possibly, the necessary economic shot in the arm as well. A place like Luderitz really needs such a shot in the arm very badly. I am also thinking of the fish products that could be transported to and fro here. Then there are, in addition, still the mining products which I spoke about. Quite possibly it would not be possible to transport, in this way, all the ore that has been mined, but then at least do so with the by-products. Farm by-products from the interior are a possibility that could give life to these smaller harbours and towns to make them stronger economically. This would result in this department also endeavouring to obtain light marine transport along the west coast arid to approach the relevant Department of Transport in this connection. Such light marine transport along the west coast could mean a great deal to these areas. As the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said, there are many possibilities for tourism and for holiday spots. When such light marine transport is available here and is extended, it could mean a great deal to the West coast.

Deserts are perhaps what we see when we go further northwards, but I know from experience that these deserts, and also the islands of which the hon. member spoke, could be utilized to much greater advantage in the future to draw tourists. If the Americans were to have had the Namib desert with all its possibilities, they would certainly have exploited it on a large scale in that connection. We must look at these fishing harbours in a broad context. We must not only use them as fishing harbours. We must, in particular, see if we cannot build a bigger fishing harbour at Luderitz.

There is one further point I should like to mention. A previous member spoke of the guano islands. We also have the Seal Island in the vicinity of Luderitz. I should actually like to advocate today that seal hunting be left to private initiative in future. Thousands of those seals are hunted and caught. If the skins and carcasses of those seals could be exploited and processed, a line industry could develop in the future.

During the course of the discussion of the two Bills concerning the fishing industry which will take place next week, we will be dealing with many of the matters raised by the hon. member for Karais. I would just like to make one brief reference to him. He alleged that I criticized the department. In all the speeches that I have made on the fishing industry, I have where necessary praised the department, but I have never directly criticized the department. I have laid the blame for what has happened in the fishing industry fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Ministers responsible.

I will now continue where I left off. I said that SARUSAS has had its small research quota withdrawn. The remaining two quotas of 180 000 tons were then replaced early last year by one quota of 120 000 tons, the biggest in the history of South-West Africa. This was to be processed at Möwe Bay in the north of South-West Africa. But this latter quota has now been replaced by a quota of 55 000 tons to be processed not at Möwe Bay in the north where there was to be a growth point developed, but at Walvis Bay. Let us look at how SARUSAS has fared in the fishing world during the last couple of years. In 1968, other factories’ boats—because it has not got its own factory or its own boats—caught 96 000 tons. Other factories processed its fish quota for it. Its proceeds from the operation was over R½ million. In 1969, other factories’ boats caught its 96 000 ton quotas while other factories too processed it. Its profit for 1969 was R643 000. All its proceeds were paid into a trust fund to develop Möwe Bay in the north of South-West Africa as a growth point. During this period SARUSAS was exempted from paying rates and taxes in respect of the funds accruing to trust, because the trust funds were to be utilized for the creation of assets which would ultimately become the property of the State. Secondly, company taxes were not paid and, thirdly, tax exemptions were given amounting to R469 000 up to 1969 and almost R600 000 for 1969-’70. In February, 1972, according to the minutes of the SARUSAS meeting held in Johannesburg, to which I have already referred, the balance of the Trust was unused, amounting to R582 000, mainly because the development at Möwe Bay seems to have been very unenthusiastically undertaken by the SARUSAS-ontwikkelingskorporasie after it received its two licences. For example, they only spent R200 000 in 1969, R86 000 in 1970, R87 000 in 1971 on site investigation for a harbour—investigations had already been undertaken some years before—on road construction and a landing strip. Why, Mr. Chairman? Because SARUSAS, which was reallocated, on the 4th of February, 1972, a 55 000-ton quota to replace its former quotas, was at the same time relieved of all the obligations to create a harbour, a landing strip, roads and a growh point in northern South-West Africa, the reasons for which it was given the original concession. Mr. Chairman, its obligations were to build a harbour, to erect processing facilities, to promote the development of the north coast and the interior, and to undertake research of the fishing potential there. Why? Why was its licence to fish at Möwe Bay withdrawn? Because research has shown that the northern sea area of South-West Africa is an important breeding-ground for pelagic fish, supplementing the fish resources of the south, and that it is undesirable that intensive exploitation should take place there. It has now in fact been proclaimed a fish reserve. Sir, in another reply to me, the then Minister charged with the responsibility for the fishing industry, Mr. A. H. du Plessis, says that the responsibility for these obligations—that is to say, to provide the landing strip, the roads, the harbour and all the other capital works—has been taken over by the State and SARUSAS has been relieved of these onerous obligations. Sir, it seems to me that one or two questions arise in this connection. This Minister interrupted just now to say that he does not answer by allegations. Of course he does not. He does not like answering my allegations.

Don’t be stupid; I did not say that.

Each time I have made allegations in this House, he has skirted around the answers; he has been rude and unpleasant to me, but never has he answered my allegations satisfactorily. The three questions which arise are these …

Your allegations are unfounded.

Now that the “growth point” at Möwe Bay—the development scheme there—has fallen through, I would like to ask why Sanlam, General Mining, Volkskas, Federale Volksbeleggings and Boesmanlandsontwikkelingskorporasie, etc., should remain in, and benefit from, a reduced, but still a very substantial, fishing licence with a 55 000-ton quota, to be operated not at Möwe Bay, which is not going to be built, but at Walvis Bay, not in their own factories but in the factories of other people at Walvis Bay. I would like to know today why it has not been revoked and the company reimbursed its expenditure, which was very little? My second question is this: If the original plan to develop Möwe Bay is resuscitated, will SARUSAS be required to divert income it receives from the Swaprom operation to the Trust Fund set up to finance Möwe Bay? Or will all its profits be paid out to its shareholders who are South Africans and not South-West Africans, except for the Westies interest and a small group of businessmen in Windhoek? The third question, Mr. Chairman, is this: What has or is to happen with the R582 000 balance in the Trust in 1972, if it is still there, or has it been paid out? That, I think, is the 64 000-dollar question. The original licence was granted as a long-term advantage for the people of South-West Africa; that means the people whom the hon. member for Karas represents and the people that the hon. member for Omaruru represents. Instead of that, the shareholders are based and live here in South Africa. What benefits, if any, from the granting of the SARUSAS licences have gone to the people of South-West Africa? The only conclusion to which I can come to, Mr. Chairman, is that SARUSAS must join that long and infamous list of concessions granted by the Nationalist Party government; for example, those concessions granted to members of Parliament, Senators, members of the Legislative Assembly, provincial councillors, party organizers, senior officials in the Administration, leading businessmen who support the Nationalist Party, big business concerns. All of these have shared in Angra Pequena; they have shared in Suid-Kunene; they have shared in the rock lobster island concession, in the rock lobster reserve, and the other concessions here on the west coast: Paternoster, Suid-Oranje and another one, the name of which I forget, as well as the 21 rock lobster concessions granted on the 1st January, 1963, against the advice of the same department whom I protect and praise, when necessary in this House instead of criticizing it. SARUSAS is one of the worst concessions granted, for the reasons I have given, and I ask the hon. the Minister to stand up and to give a detailed explanation of why he has given a 55 000-ton fishing licence to SARUSAS, people who have no interest whatsoever in the fishing industry, and he has absolved them from all the obligations to develop the north of South-West Africa, obligations which were undertaken in consideration of their being given a fishing licence.

I shall not react to the hon. member who has just sat down, but the level on which he moves reminds me of the type of dog one encounters in some spots, even in the Bantu townships, a fairly hungry dog that is always sniffing around and at night goes from one dustbin to another to see if it cannot sniff something out. I must say that the level on which this hon. member moves is not much higher. I shall now leave him there.

We all realize full well what an important role Iscor plays in the Republic of South Africa, particularly as far as the economy of our country is concerned. If we think that Iscor was originally planned to produce about 180 000 tons of steel ingots and that this corporation has, in the past year, produced just short of four million tons of steel ingots, one realizes what an important role Iscor plays; and with the future planning and expansion, the intention is to produce about 6½ million tons of steal ingots by the year 1976. Sales of Iscor products have netted R304 million over the past year, a very important contribution to our economy. Then one realizes full well the role that Iscor is playing. But the most important aim is still, however, getting into our export market, and I think, since the hon. the Minister of Finance has also announced certain steps here for stimulating our exports, that it is important that Iscor should also have a share in that, because it is very important for us to have greater diversity as far as our export products are concerned. At the present moment we are leaning very heavily on gold as an export product. It is also encouraging that in recent years Iscor has to a certain extent ventured into this export market on a smaller scale and does not only produce for the local market any longer. We recall that in the past year about 69 000 tons of primary steel products were exported to countries such as the U.S.A., the United Kingdom and countries in Europe and the Middle East, an increase of almost 30 000 tons. Then we see that our steel products, at the price at which they are manufactured, are in fact competitive and that they have made a contribution of about R4,5 million to foreign exchange. If one thinks of the fact that 467 000 tons of iron ore and 517 000 tons of pig iron were exported and brought us in foreign exchange of R14,4 million, and that the importation of steel has decreased, one realizes full well the importance of this industry to our country. I should like to refer to a report which appeared today in The Argus and in this morning’s Burger. I am referring to today’s Argus: “R300 million a year from Sishen.” This refers to the announcement which the chairman of the Iscor board of directors apparently made yesterday before the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut; it concerns the possibility of establishing a company which would process ore in a refined form or semi-form, the terms we normally use. It is, of course, very important, because this could mean a great deal to South Africa as far as foreign exchange is concerned. Since a final decision has already been taken about the Saldanha-Sishen project, I think it is very important that a decision should also be reached about where this installation is going to be located as far as the manufacturing of semis is concerned. It is also important from a planning point of view that this should perhaps be announced as quickly as possible. I think this is also very important as far as the negotiations with certain companies are concerned. We have seen that an Austrian company is involved, a company which is tremendously interested in this. In the third place, what is also important, I think, and must also have an influence on the location and establishment of this industry, is the decision that this railway line will, out and out, be a single purpose line and not a multi-purpose one, and in addition the decision to continue with the construction of the harbour at Saldanha. If one takes these facts into consideration, one can only come to the conclusion that this industry can be placed at one of three spots. It can be at the starting point, and I regard Sishen as the starting point, or at the end point, Saldanha, or possibly at a point along that line, because I do not think it can be placed away from that line.

I want to mention certain benefits if such a project were to be placed at Sishen. In the first place one thinks of the fact that the industry would then be at the ore source. The ore mined at Sishen is of course, one of the most important materials used in the manufacturing of raw steel. If one were to place such an industry there, one would also have the advantage of not having rust problems that are generally experienced by installations along the coast.

Since we have already decided upon the construction of the railway line to Saldanha Bay, Iscor will, of course, have to make provision for rolling stock. If provision has already been made for rolling stock, it will be found that if the project is placed at Sishen, provision will also have to be made for a second type of rolling stock. The type of truck used for the transportation of ore differs completely, of course, from that used for the transportation of semi-processed material. In the case of ore use is made of tip-trucks. The truck is loaded with ore and the whole truck is tipped, but for semi-processed material open trucks are used to, transport semis of up to 18 metres in length and weighing up to 80 tons.

There is also a second aspect. We would, of course, all like to see greater concentration on the export of semi-processed material than on the export of ore. If such a project were to be placed at Sishen, in time considerable extensions would have to be incorporated in one’s loading facilities at Sishen in order to transport the semi-processed material. Then, of course, ever fewer of the then existing loading facilities will be used for ore. This is, of course, a factor which would count in favour of Saldhanha, as would the fact that use would not have to be made of various types of rolling stock.

There is also another very important factor. If the project is placed at Sishen and later extended with a view to export, one would find that one needs more than 3 000 Whites. If one were to decide to extend the mining activities at Sishen and to place the installation at Saldanha, one would need fewer Whites, of course, since one would be able to make greater use of Coloured labour at Saldanha. I believe that it is important that there should be such a growth point for Coloured labour in the Cape.

I want to mention one of the problems one encounters when one is dealing with staff. I can attest to this fact because I myself was connected with an Iscor mine at Thabazimbe. When it comes to the mine itself and the mineworkers, one usually does not have any problem drawing people there. However, when it comes to the technical and administrative staff, one finds that one does not draw the people that easily. Since one would have a highly automated industry, one would have to make use of highly trained technical staff. I believe that in the initial stages of such a project one will also have to make use of overseas people and their knowledge. I know that these overseas people are much more inclined to come to the coastal centres than to go to the interior, particularly because there is an attraction in this area, such as Cape Town near by.

As far as another aspect is concerned— and this is a Very important aspect—I want to refer to the question of pollution. I think that Saldanha also has the advantage in this sphere. Saldanha has the advantage because the strength of the wind, the direction of the wind and the lulls in the wind make it much more efficient for the establishment of the industry at Saldanha. I think it is important to decide about this matter with a view to the planning of this very important project for the export of raw material. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will excuse me if I do not follow his line of argument. He did mention the possibility of encouraging exports of semi-processed iron and steel through Saldanha. That is something which we on this side of the House certainly support.

I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister another aspect of exporting which is covered in the Reynders Commission’s report and to which the hon. the Minister of Finance referred in his Budget speech. I refer to the question of extending the exporters’ allowance which is a matter already embodied in our tax structure, to service industries which are responsible for invisible exports which spend money particularly overseas on promoting invisible exports. The hon. the Minister of Finance did state in his Budget speech that he was going to have consultations with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Department of Commerce in regard to going into the matter of drawing up a list of service industries which would be permitted to participate in such a scheme. It is for the reason that the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated that it was with the Department of Commerce with which he was going to have consultations, that I raise it under this Vote although the matter which I want to raise is closely connected with the portfolio of another Minister, the Minister of Tourism. I want to put the case to the hon. the Minister that private enterprise and private operators in the travel and tourist industry who spend money abroad by promoting tourism to South Africa should be permitted to participate in this scheme for export allowances. The Reynders Commission placed substantial emphasis on the importance of tourism and the potential thereof as an earner of foreign currency. The latest figure available for foreign currency earned by the tourist industry is for the year 1971 when the sum of R72 million was earned. I would estimate that allowing for the expansion of the tourist industry and also allowing for the inflation factor, the tourist industry last year earned at least R90 million and possibly even a higher figure. That figure, which represents export earnings, places tourism, as an industry, high on the list of importance as an exporter. When you consider that our total exports were last year in the neighbourhood of R2 000 million, R90 million to R100 million constitutes an important export industry. It is comparable with the exports of metallic minerals, and it is greater than the export of wool and the export of chemicals, which are other big exporting industries. I think that even more impressive than the actual performance of the tourist industry, are the figures included in the Reynders Commission’s report of the potential in future years of this industry as a foreign exchange earner, namely R200 million by 1980 and R800 million by the year 2000. If these figures are achieved, the tourist industry in South Africa will go right into the first league of importance as an export industry. Like everything else, however, if that potential is to be achieved, a substantial effort will have to be made. I know that Satour, which is our national organization for promoting tourism overseas, does a first-class job, but its funds are limited and therefore the scope of its operations is limited. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that private enterprise could play a much larger part than it is playing in the promotion of tourism and that it would be greatly encouraged to play that part if it were allowed to participate in the export allowance scheeme.

To give the hon. the Minister an idea of what I have in mind as regards the type of business and the type of expenditure incurred by those businesses to which I think the export allowance should apply, there are firstly, South African based travel booking and promoting organizations or travel agencies who incur expenses abroad in the production and distribution of brochures about South Africa, who advertise South African tours overseas at their own expense, who pay commissions to overseas travel organizations, who act as booking agents for group tours to South Africa, and who incur expenditure in the maintenance of offices such as branch service offices to promote tourism to South Africa; these are all expenditures incurred and aimed at the promotion of tourism to South Africa. I appreciate that tourism is a two-way traffic and that some of the expenses incurred by travel agents help outward traffic as much as they help inward traffic, but the items I have mentioned—and that is by no means an all-inclusive list of expenses for promoting tourism—are specifically aimed at promoting inward tourism. In other words, they are specifically aimed at exporting tourism.

I also have in mind expenditure incurred by some of the major hotel groups and even by some individual hotels in selling their wares abroad, i.e. money spent abroad to promote South African hotels. I think that that is also something that should be encouraged by an export allowance. At present the hotel industry is an industry which has substantial surplus capacity. When developments, which are at present in the pipeline, come on stream, it is going to have an even greater surplus capacity, so that export is something it can do without having to attract further investment and without having to impinge on other economic resources of the country, such as labour. I suggest that the hotel industry is an absolute natural to be encouraged to promote and market its services overseas, and I believe it will be greatly encouraged to do so if it were included in the export allowance scheme.

Mr. Chairman, various subjects have been raised here, to which I should now like, in part, to reply. I do not think I will succeed in coming this evening to the questions put by the unsavoury Mr. Wiley, but I shall probably come to them tomorrow …

That is not a normal parliamentary expression.

… and I hope that even he, if he would give his attention properly to the merits of the matter, will be satisfied when he has received the reply.

First, just a few remarks in general. The two departments under my control, viz. the Department of Commerce and the Department of Industries, do not table annual reports as various other departments do, and consequently this does not give hon. members an opportunity of assessing the functions of these two departments on the basis of reports submitted here annually. I assume and believe that it is not possible or desirable that such reports should be submitted, but I do nevertheless think it would be a good thing if the Minister responsible furnished a brief annual survey on the occasion of the discussion of his Vote of the activities of the two departments. I shall try, as from next year, to draw up such a short report, very concisely, and then read it out here when the Vote is discussed. If I may dwell, just for a minute or two, on the activities of the Department of Commerce only, I want to mention that the two most important tasks of the Department of Commerce, which was established on the instructions of the Cabinet, are firstly to create favourable conditions as a result of which domestic commercial distribution centres can fulfil their functions, and secondly to promote the export trade and foreign trade relations with other countries. If we consider the internal trade in the first place, and I am doing this particularly because I realize that there are activities in this department of which some hon. members are perhaps not even aware, one sees that matters such as import control, price control and our fuel filling-station scheme, in terms of which a restriction is being imposed on filling stations for reasons of which hon. members are aware, monopolistic practices and other undesirable practices, which the hon. member for Parktown referred to here this afternoon and on which I shall also make a few remarks at a later stage, fall under the department. In addition to that there is also shipping, and the administration of our maritime freight agreement. Then there are two important organizations which fall under the Department of Commerce, one of which is virtually unknown and which probably few hon. members will know about, viz. the University of Potchefstroom’s Institute for Small Businessmen which provides advice and guidance, particularly of a technical nature, to small businessmen. This Institute is being subsidized by the Department of Commerce. At the congress of the Handelsinstituut in Johannesburg, which is still in progress at the moment—I think it comes to an end tonight—great appreciation has once again been expressed for the value of this institute to the small businessman, and for the assistance and advice this institute is providing to them.

The second important organization, and one we are better acquanted with, is the South African Consumer Council, which has to receive and investigate complaints from the public concerning alleged irregularities in the distribution trade. This Consumer Council is also subsidized by the Department of Commerce.

If we could for a moment consider the foreign sector, there is in the first place the promotion of exports to which we are, we hope, still going to devote considerable discussion in this debate. Quite a good deal has already been said about this matter, but I also want to say something about it. Secondly there is the promotion of good relations with the countries abroad with which we trade. In this sphere very important events have recently taken place, which we shall also discuss in this debate. The first is Britain’s entry into the enlarged European Community. Arising out of Britain’s entry, the second is the British Government’s decision to cancel the Ottawa Agreement of 1932 entered into between other countries and our own. And in the third place there is the very important recent event in international trade, i.e. the understanding which America, the E.E.C. and Japan as the initiators reached with regard to international consultations within the framework of GATT, which are going to take place later this year. I shall make a statement in this regard at a later stage. It is realized that these three giants which I mentioned, i.e. Japan, the United States and the E.E.C., are today the three great giants in the Western world. It is of the utmost importance for international peace—and not only in the economic sphere—that all areas of friction between these three great giants in the commercial sphere should be eliminated. As I have said, I shall discuss at a later stage the international trade conference to be held later in the year.

Then there is also the technical sector of the Department of Commerce. There this department deals with the Weights and Measures Act. This serves as protection to the public and particularly to the consumer. The Companies Act is administered by this department, and so, too, patents and trade marks which are also an integral part of the activities of the Department of Commerce. Finally there is the explosives division, functioning not only for the safety of the individual, but also in the interests of the security of the State. I have simply made these few comments, and we can on another occasion when this Vote is being discussed, discuss the activities of the various departments during the preceding year, particularly in regard to the spheres with which hon. members are not completely conversant.

The hon. member for Parktown raised various subjects, which I should now like to discuss. Among other things he mentioned GATT. He also referred to the enlarged E.E.C., in regard to which he made certain observations. I shall begin with the E.E.C., and, elaborating on that, proceed to deal with GATT. It goes without saying that we should like to retain, stabilize and expand our trade relations with Europe, if this is in any way possible. The hon. member for Parktown told me that when we negotiate with the E.E.C., we should speak forcefully and from a position of strength that we have ourselves attained. I want to give him the assurance at this stage that this will be done on every occasion. Perhaps not all members realize that after the United States of America, we are the greatest importer of goods from the enlarged E.E.C. It is only the United States of America that is a better client of the E.E.C. than we are. For us the member countries of the enlarged E.E.C. are very valuable export countries. They are not merely our obvious trading area geographically speaking, we have also greatly expanded our trade to those countries over the past few years. The exports which we have built up to those countries, particularly to the United Kingdom, to which one-third of our exports go, necessitate that we should like to retain those exports. The British entry to the European Community has of course affected us and posed certain problems for us. As happens in the ordinary course of events, these problems were discuss among the various countries. We have in fact discussed this from time to time with Britain and the various European countries, in an attempt to find solutions to the problems we have experienced there. Sir, there were rumours to the effect that we had concluded a trade agreement with the E.E.C. That is not true. We have not concluded any trade agreement with the E.E.C., nor is such a move being contemplated at present. Nor is it possible for us to obtain membership of the E.E.C., for E.E.C. membership is limited to Europe itself, as its name indicates. Theoretically-speaking it is probably possible for us to obtain associated membership, but we are not contemplating such a step either; nor is that where our interests lie. Recently of course with the entry of Britain to the European Community, our immediate problems were in connection with apples, pears and wine, and for that reason we have recently been paying special attention to these few products. It also goes without saying—hon. members are apparently aware of this—that with the entry of Britain to the European Community Britain has to accept the agricultural policy of the European Community, and this agricultural policy of the E.E.C. is firmly geared to limiting the imports of agricultural produce to those countries, and to protecting the agriculture of those countries. I am afraid, Sir, that we have to accept the E.E.C. policy, as it has to be applied to Britain, as irrevocable. There is nothing we can do about it. The E.E.C. policy will be applied to Britain, and all we can do is to try to mitigate as far as possible the disadvantages which this entails for us within the framework of the enlarged E.E.C., and perhaps do our best to ensure that changes are effected within the E.E.C. policy which will make the position a more endurable one for us. But in spite of that we must also realize, as the hon. member for Parktown correctly said, that we have in this enlarged E.E.C. a tremendous market for our products, and not only we but also many other exporters throughout the entire world. In the first place our attention is of course focused on Britain, which was our greatest client in the past and which has always, as I said, taken approximately one-third of our exports. Of course we must not neglect the British market; on the contrary, despite the set-backs we must concentrate on trying to retain our British markets, but in addition to that I think that it is also our task to do everything we can to expand our exports to the other eight member countries of the enlarged E.E.C., for hon. members must bear in mind that after the transitional period the conditions, the treatment, the customs duties and regulations applicable, will be precisely the same in the other E.E.C. countries as those we are going to experience in regard to Britain.

For that reason I think that what we can do is give our exporters this counsel and advice: Whereas you previously concentrated on Britain and had your agents in London, and from thence traded with Europe after a fashion, you should locate agents in all the various countries of Europe, for it is a psychological fact that the importers of Italy or Germany are not keen to work through agents in London. We must therefore concentrate our attention on the capitals of the various European countries as well, and try to make a breakthrough there in order to establish markets for ourselves.

Sir, we have always been sympathetic— and we said so as well—to the British entry to the European Community. In fact, I personally felt that I could not fault the British entry to the E.E.C. from the point of view of Britain’s interests. It goes without saying that this enlarged E.E.C. is also very interested in Africa; there is no doubt at all about that, and in so far as the various E.E.C. countries are interested in and wish to promote trade relations with Africa, I think that we here in Southern Africa, as the economically strongest country, can play a particularly important role, not only in promoting relations with Europe, but also in helping our neighbouring States with regard to their trade relations with the enlarged E.E.C. We have continuously, from the outset when the possibility that Britain would become a member was first mooted, done everything we could to bring the problems of South Africa to the attention of the E.E.C.

In 1962, when this possibility was mooted for the first time, and when Dr. Diederichs was Minister of Economic Affairs, he held talks with Ministers in Europe on the possible entry of Britain to the E.E.C. At one stage the negotiations came to a halt, and at a later stage the negotiations were recommenced, and then the former Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Haak, again conducted negotiations and held meetings with our ambassadors there to bring attention to the problems of South Africa; in this way we have continuously, from the beginning, been making the necessary efforts. Since I took over the responsibility for this portfolio this has, in turn, been my task, and by the end of 1970 I had already held talks with various Ministers in European countries and in Britain. The hon. member for Parktown mentioned this just now, and I am pleased that, with the help of the officials there, he found his visit to Brussels so interesting, and I appreciate what he said, but he mentioned the fact that the people are so sympathetic and well-disposed. Sir, that is correct, I can give him the assurance that they were just as sympathetic to me, but up to now I have had very little from them. That is the great problem.

I now want to tell you what happened to me in 1971, and I do not want you to interpret what I am going to tell you as a reflection on any responsible Minister in Brussels, or in the E.E.C., or any official or member of the commission; that is not the case, for I am aware that in this enlarged E.E.C., after the British entry to the E.E.C., they are so busy with their own negotiations to set their own domestic affairs in order in all the various spheres that one finds it extremely difficult to get them to give attention to one’s own case. You arrive there and talk to them, they receive you very cordially, and they then tell you that it will probably be possible and that all will go well, we can try this, but then nothing further happens. I arrived at the conclusion that the E.E.C. is like a bale of wool. You cannot get a grip on it anywhere. You cannot move it. Even if it is not all that heavy, you simply cannot get a grip on it. In 1971 I went to Europe armed with an official petition. This is the first time I am disclosing this information. I went there armed with an official petition from the Government of the Republic of South Africa, containing a single request— this is all that was requested in the petition —that we be afforded an opportunity of discussing our problems in Brussels on a product for product basis. That is all I asked; nothing further. I simply requested an opportunity for discussing our affairs on a product for product basis. I went to England and had pleasant interviews there with British Ministers. From thence I went to Germany, and I also visited Italy, and in all these places I had interviews with responsible Ministers. They gave me a pleasant dinner in Italy; from thence I went to France. And everywhere I talked to the responsible Ministers. On all these occasions I told them that on such and such a date I would hand over an official petition to the chairman of the Council of Ministers, who at the time was a Mr. Moro of Italy, the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs. I told him that on such and such a date I wanted to submit a certain petition, and that I just wanted their support so that we could be afforded this opportunity. We had this petition, which was not a lengthy one, translated into all the various languages, German, French and Italian, and on the day I was received by Mr. Moro, a very kind, friendly and always soft-spoken person, I was under the impression that he was impressed when I gave him the document, signed by our Minister of Foreign Affairs and drawn up in Italian. He was impressed by the fact that it was in Italian, because we conducted our conversation in English. On that same day the same document was handed over to the responsible Ministers in all the various countries, translated into the language of those countries. Mr. Moro informed me that he believed it was possible that such an opportunity would be created. We parted as very good friends. Our responsible ambassador there, Dr. Naude, had arranged an informal function for me that same evening at which I could meet all the ambassadors of the E.E.C. countries in Brussels. The ambassadors of the member countries at the E.E.C. offices in Brussels are influential people, for they advise their Ministers. They are very important. I met them that evening and had informal talks with them concerning our problems, and told them the same story and what we were requesting from them. They said that our request sounded very fair and that it would probably be possible to accede to it. However, I am sorry to say that I have still not received any replies. This is the unhappy story I now have to recount with reference to the hon. member’s impressions which he received there that these people are friendly and kind. It is unfortunately the case that those people, in the meeting place of the E.E.C., are very busy. That meeting place in Brussels is these days an enormous constellation, and they are, as it were, working day and night on their own problems. I do not want to say that our problems never receive any attention. We are there all the time, and we are negotiating, but up to now we have not yet achieved very much.

I have said that our main immediate problems as a result of Britain’s entry are the export of apples, pears and wine. As far as apples and pears are concerned, the Deciduous Fruit Board had to reserve ships in September of last year so that these products could be exported as from January of this year. There were reports that there would be a levy on apples and pears up to a specified date. We did not know what the levy would amount to, and consequently we did not know whether it would be profitable for us to export apples and pears. Nevertheless we decided that the ships should be reserved. Just before Christmas it was decided to impose a levy and we were then informed that there would be a levy on pears up to the end of February, and a levy on apples up to the end of March. Those levies would be of fundamental importance. I am not quite certain of the correct amounts, but on pears it would be approximately R1-45 and on apples approximately R2 per box. That meant that when our boxes of apples arrived in Britain, a tax of R2 would be payable. That box would still have to be sold and all the other costs would also have to be deducted from the selling price, and the farmers would eventually receive what was left.

This levy was not aimed specifically at South African apples, for we have had the British market at our disposal all these years. However, this levy was introduced in order to protect the British farmer against the European farmer, for there is a large production of apples in France and Italy. The British farmer has to be protected against the apple producer in Europe during the transitional period, and for that reason this levy was introduced. The season in the Northern hemisphere ends shortly after New Year and that is why the levy period for pears expired at the end of February, and the one for apples at the end of March, precisely because it was aimed at protecting the British farmer against the European farmers. Be that as it may, I was then approached by the Deciduous Fruit Board early in January after we had established what the levy on apples and pears would be, to let them know whether they should export or should not export at all. Those are the problems we are dealing with in regard to this matter. It will of course be understood that there is the possibility that if the levy is a very high one, we could be exporting at a loss. On the other hand, one must also take into account the fact that if one does not export, one’s products disappear from the market, temporarily at least, and the danger is then that we will lose this market we have built up over the course of years. We then decided that we should proceed to export. As circumstances would have it, the apple and pear harvest during the past season in Europe was very, very poor, and as a result of that the quantities of apples and pears remaining in the cold storage sheds of Europe and Britain were not great, and our apples and pears fetched particularly good prices on the British market.

They sold at a shilling apiece.

Yes, they were very expensive. All in all it would seem as though the farmers did not do too badly, despite the levy which was imposed. We do not know what is going to happen next year. My experience of farming is—and there are many farmers in this House who can confirm this—that if one has a bad harvest the one year, one can expect a good harvest the next. That is simply the way things are in farming. It may be that there is a good apple and pear harvest in Europe next year and that we are going to run into problems. Let us take for example the levy of R2 which is being imposed on a box of apples. This levy has to be cancelled out over a period of five years, and consequently will be reduced next year by 20%, the year after by a further 20%, until the levy will have been cancelled out over five years. Over and above this levy we also had to pay a 10% customs duty this year. There is a technical argument as to why we have to pay it, and not Australia and New Zealand, but I do not want to go into that now. However, it remains a fact. We had to pay this 10% customs duty as well this year, but this duty should in fact have increased gradually so that it stood at 10% only after fives years. However, we are paying this duty from the outset. We will, in other words, pay 80% of that R2 over and above this 10% customs duty. After the five years we will of course be paying only the 10% customs duty on our apples and pears.

In respect of grapes, which are a very important export product of the Boland, no levy was payable, and the customs duty on that product will also mount gradually until we are eventually having to pay a 22% or 23% duty, i.e. after five years have elapsed. In this process our task is simply to do what we can to try to eliminate these areas of friction, where the British entry to the European Common Market is hurting us, during this period. In this way we are going to try to negotiate the best terms under the best circumstances possible.

As far as our wine is concerned, the position is different. In the case of wine there is a provision in the E.E.C. which lays down that we should find certain regional names for our various wines. Last year work was in progress in this regard through the agency of the K.W.V.—we do nothing, as it were without the co-operation of the K.W.V. and the Deciduous Fruit Board. At the beginning of this year, on 16th January, when I was last in London making a final effort in regard to the marketing of apples and pears, there was a meeting in regard to our regional names and their acceptance. The meeting was adjourned, and at a subsequent stage they convened again, but once again they adjourned. Eventually our regional names have now been approved. Now we must proceed to make application for exemption from a reference price. In the case of wine there is no such thing as a levy as we have in the case of apples and pears, but there is, however, a reference price. That means that our wines, whether sherry or any other kind of wine, may not be sold at a cheaper price on the European market than a specific determined price. That price is called the reference price. Such a high reference price is being set that our product will, as it were, be pushed off the market if we were to be compelled to apply that reference price. For that reason our next effort, now that the regional names of our wines have been accepted, is to try to obtain exemption from the determination of that reference price. If that reference price has to be paid, I am afraid that our wine industry in South Africa will really be dealt a serious blow. I think that that is more or less where we stand today. I must honestly say that I do not think that such a concentrated and coordinated attempt has ever been made in respect of any industry as has during the past few months, or since last year, been made in respect of wine in particular, but also in respect of apples and pears. In the process we will simply do whatever we can and in this way try to get through to the other side as best we may.

The hon. member also referred to GATT. He quoted from a brief report released by me, coming from a committee which was appointed to advise on the processes we have to adopt to help us out in the best way possible in respect of the problems we are experiencing in regard to GATT. What the hon. member read out was quite correct. There are certain commodities in regard to which there are no bindings. Where we have no bindings we can, according to the advice of the Board of Trade and Industry, lay down tariff determinations in order to afford protection to those industries in question. That is correct, but as regards other commodities, which we should also like to protect, we are bound. It is a protracted process to obtain the cancellation of these particular bindings in order to afford our industries the necessary protection by way of tariff protection. I do not want to elaborate on this, but negotiations are proceeding and we have already achieved considerable success in the cancellation of the bindings. As far as this protection is concerned, we have adopted as a rule the policy of retaining our import control, on the basis of advice given to the Government by this committee in question, in cases where we do not have a free hand to afford tariff protection. In this way we can afford the necessary interim protection until such time as our hands are free to afford the necessary tariff protection. Of course, it goes without saying that a matter is sometimes referred to the Board of Trade and Industry and that that Board is not prepared to afford the necessary protection or make the necessary recommendations that tariff protection be afforded. The Board of Trade and Industry cannot merely act as it wishes because, as the hon. member will understand, there is a welter of factors, in the interests of the country and of the economy, which the Board has to take into account. Where a commodity is protected by import control and the Board of Trade and Industry is not prepared to afford or recommend tariff protection, we of course exempt the article in question from import control. Then we simply have to continue with the situation as it is. Where tariff protection can in fact be recommended by the Board of Trade and Industry we keep the article under import control until such time as the necessary tariff protection can be afforded.

I should like to return to the multilateral negotiations within the framework of GATT to which I referred a moment ago. Perhaps it would be best if I read out this document I have before me. It would probably take up less time (translation)—

The hon. member for Parktown referred a moment ago to the fact that South Africa finds itself somewhere in between as far as development is concerned. It is accepted by GATT as a developed country, but in comparison with the highly developed countries of the world, such as Europe and America, we are in fact not an entirely developed country. We are somewhere in between. I quote further—

It is expected that the conference will begin in September of this year in Tokyo, and that it will last approximately two years. On our part we are very busy preparing to state our case as effectively as possible when we are afforded an opportunity of doing so at these very important discussions.

The hon. member then went on to discuss the Reynders Report, and he paid tribute to the members of the commission and the chairman who had made such a comprehensive report available to us in such a short period of time. We have expressed our appreciation in this House on previous occasions, and I do not think we can do any harm by mentioning this again. The hon. member requested us to make it our task to put the proposals of the Reynders Commission with regard to the promotion of our exports into operation. Now I just want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a great deal has already been done on the part of the Government in this regard. Obviously the Government is not the only body which is in a position to promote exports; this promotional work should also to a large extent be done by the exporters themselves. As I have said, a great deal has already been done by the Government. One may deal with the financial contributions of the Government under two headings.

In the first place there are the fiscal concessions and financing cost assistance to exporters. The allowable expenditure under this heading includes, firstly, an estimated annual amount of R9 million, which has been approved by the Government, for income tax purposes as far as the development of export markets by exporters is concerned. In the second place, service industries, for example ship repair works, that want to obtain overseas contracts, are to be included in that group of enterprises, viz. local manufacturers, which qualify for the concession in paragraph 1. This amounts to a total of R1 million. In the third place, to firms or organizations exporting a specific portion of their total produce, an additional depreciation allowance of 10% on their investments and new machinery and equipment has to be granted. That will require R1,5 million, and has also been approved by the Government. In the fourth place, the existing concession to exporters in respect of a State-aided reduction of the interest burden in connection with the financing of their exports, has to be improved. This will require R8 million, and has also been approved by the Government. In the fifth place, the Government has to bear part of the interest cost burden connected with pre-shipping financing and capital goods. That will require R.5 million. Finally, a similar form of assistance appears under this heading. This is in effect a subsidizing of the interest burden which has to be made available to local exporting organizations that want to keep stocks in foreign warehouses. A further R500 000 is required for this purpose. Then, too, there is assistance in regard to transportation costs. Assistance in regard to special, reduced Railage rates will cost R22,3 million. This has also been approved. Assistance to coastal industries manufacturing for export markets and obtaining raw materials from the interior, will amount to R1,5 million. There are only two recommendations which will cost money and which have up to now not yet been approved, and that is in respect of air and maritime transportation. All in all, redommendations were made which would have cost R52,35 million. Of that the Government has already approved assistance which will amount to R46,35 million per annum. As far as the financial aspect is concerned, I think the Government has already made a generous contribution to implementing the recommendations of the Reynders Commission.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.