Mr. Speaker, the business for the next week is as follows: Today we shall give preference to Orders of the Day Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and having disposed of No. 6, we shall resume the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill, Order of the Day No. 4. The Votes of the Minister of Planning will be dealt with. If these are not disposed of today, we shall proceed with them on Monday. For the rest of Monday we shall give preference to Orders of the Day Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, and as from Tuesday, we shall proceed with the Votes again. For the rest of next week we should like to try to give preference to the Votes.

Mr. Chairman, may I first of all explain what may have been regarded as a misdemeanour on my part in objecting to the Committee Stage being taken yesterday. I understood from the Deputy Minister, I believe incorrectly, that he was going to go into the question which I had raised and I thought I would give him the time to do so this morning. It is for that reason that I raised objection.

During the Second Reading I pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the powers which are here to be given in terms of clause 1 to the provincial administrations are powers which go far beyond meeting the problems presently existing in Natal and for which the Natal Provincial Administration needed legislation. As I read this clause it will now enable the provinces to establish corporations which can in fact fulfil any of the functions of a local authority or a group of local authorities. I do not have to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that we on this side of the House believe that the powers presently vested in Government at local and provincial levels should be safeguarded and extended. We should permit the maximum degree of local option in regard to matters of local government. This Bill will empower provincial councils to establish corporations which may go far beyond, let us say, what is required by the Natal Provincial Administration. I want to say immediately that for obvious reasons I have no doubt that the Natal Provincial Administration would act very circumspectly and reasonably.

It is a decent administration. It is controlled by the U.P.

Well, we harbour doubts in regard to other provincial administrations. It is for this reason that I believe that where a corporation is to be established by a provincial administration, it should be done at the request of the local authority concerned. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, and I shall briefly explain to him why. It is the function of Parliament to lay down the legislative powers a provincial administration should be given, and it is the function of those provincial councils to exercise those powers subject only to the laws of this Parliament. If any representations have to be made in regard to the exercise of these legal powers, such representations should not be addressed to the Government, but to the provincial administration that has to approve such an ordinance. Furthermore, it is wrong constitutionally to make legislative powers of the provincial councils subject to the approval of subordinate bodies in the state hierarchy in South Africa, or to make them subordinate to bodies over which provincial administrations have legal and administrative powers. I want to quote the hon. member an example. In 1967 we committed what I want to call a blunder in this regard. At that time legislative powers were granted to the provincial administrations in order to establish, among other things, caravan parks and holiday resorts. However, a proviso was inserted to the effect that the provision of caravan parks and holiday resorts could only be done by means of a regulation promulgated in terms of an ordinance of a provincial council in consultation with the Department of Tourism and the Department of Sport and Recreation. The provincial administrations raised many objections in regard to this proviso. One of those administrations, particularly on account of this proviso, did not even provide those facilities. One of the others did not want to do it by way of ordinance. They did so administratively. In 1971 we had to delete this proviso, which led to so many objections, from the legislation. Natal is already using this co-ordinating service system for the provision of water and the removal of sewerage and factory waste. Natal has applied this system to great advantage of local authorities and their inhabitants, and also without any objection being raised on the part of any of those local authorities which might have thought their tax sources would become involved. It is unthinkable that a provincial administration would exercise these powers before consulting such local authorities. Nor is it likely that it will usurp these powers and establish a co-ordinating service organization if this is not done to the benefit of the local body concerned. I therefore can see no danger that provincial authorities will act in an irresponsible manner, and we cannot make their statutory authority subject to subordinate bodies in the state hierarchy of South Africa. I believe the hon. member may rest assured that the provincial administrations will exercise this legislative power in such a manner that it will agree with the wishes of the local authority.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the warning he issued to the provincial councils. Under those circumstances I shall, with leave of the Committee, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as I have said during the Second Reading debate, we support this legislation in principle. Since we are going to give more specific attention to the application of this legislation at the Third Reading, I should like to emphasize a number of points.

In the first place, everything will depend on the extent of the financial assistance these training centres are going to receive. For that reason we ask the hon. the Minister, in the application of this legislation, to ensure that this aspect receives the greatest priority not only as far as the subsidy is concerned, but also as far as the organizations are concerned which can approach the hon. the Minister for loans. The Minister has now been empowered to deal with this matter in conjunction with the Minister of Finance. The success of this legislation and the extent to which it is going to succeed in its aims, will depend on the availability of properly and suitably trained staff. One must admit that very few trained staff are available in this sphere, and that the introduction of such courses therefore presents a challenge. We will have to find motivated people. We will have to find not only people who are prepared to do the work, but we will also have to find people devoted to the task. I want to point out again that a major source of knowledge is, in fact, available in the form of those people who performed this type of work without any official recognition in the past. We hope that their services will be used so that everyone will be able to benefit from their experience.

†This is a typical enabling Bill and how well it will function will depend largely upon the regulations which are to be issued. May I appeal to the hon. the Minister to issue regulations which will allow for flexibility in application. This is very important, because you are dealing here not with a rigid situation. I would also like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to utilize the knowledge and the experience of those people who have been active in this field privately and independently for so many years. I believe that they, by virtue of their experience, have a great deal to offer particularly in respect of four aspects. Firstly, they can assist in the compiling of training programmes for children. Secondly, they can help with the determination of training courses for teachers and employees. Thirdly, and this is very important, they can supply the department with knowledge and experience about buildings and the outlay thereof. Finally, they can assist with another very important aspect, i.e. of the creation of a suitable environment. In so far as these four aspects are concerned, the hon. the Minister will in fact be able to get valuable advice and assistance from these people, depending to what extent he is able to use them.

Finally, in the application of this Bill we can give effect to further resolutions of the Declaration of the General and Special Rights of the Mentally Retarded as adopted by the United Nations, some of which I have quoted during the Second Reading debate. I now wish to quote others which, I believe, we can give effect to in the application of this Bill. I want to read the following:

This can be made possible in the application of this Bill. Secondly, the following is also important:

This is a well-established principle, something which the hon. the Minister can keep in mind in the application of this Bill. And then, finally:

This of course is the great challenge. Let us then get on with the task of training these unfortunate people, but let it not be aimless training. Let it be training with an ultimate objective in mind and let that objective be training—as far as it is humanly possible—for social adaptation.

Mr. Speaker, associating myself with the hon. member for Durban Central, I want to express a few thoughts in regard to those children in the age group for which no provision is being made in this Bill, i.e. children under the age of six years. When considering the programme compiled for pre-primary education in South Africa, and when considering the penetrating studies conducted overseas and in this country in order to compile a programme which will do justice to the full development of the perceptive faculties of these pupils, we appreciate the importance of this group of children in the age group three to six years. It is this group which has not been included in this measure. We should like to make an earnest request to the hon. the Minister to the effect that parents of children who have not reached the age of six years should also be afforded the opportunity of including such children under these training centres. This is a particularly important phase in the life of such a child. He should be afforded full opportunity for development along the broad lines of his level of ability. In particular a plan could be drawn up for him according to which he is able to develop, a programme which will fit in with his requirements similar to the one which is at present being used in our primary schools in the initial stages of a child’s education. What we are therefore asking the hon. the Minister is whether he could not make provision also in this respect so that these children could be admitted to these centres. I am referring to children in the age group three to six years. Then we also have the provision to the effect that the Minister may require a child to remain at a training centre after he has reached the age of 18 years. Each one of these children is an exceptional individual in his own right, and we should like to accept that the child should have the right to stay on at such a centre after he has reached the age of 18 years, depending on the progress and development he has already achieved at that particular stage.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lengthy and, I think, also a very fruitful discussion on this Bill. I should like to express my gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House for the sentiments they have expressed here. I also want to reply to a number of points raised at this stage of the debate. I want to say that the Department of National Education is the department which has had the best and longest experience of dealing with special education, in regard to all forms of retardation as well. Without boasting about the achievements of my own department, I think we can be grateful for what the Department of National Education has done in regard to special education. We can be very proud of our achievements. I want to suggest that, as far as special education is concerned, there are many other countries in the world, developed countries, which can learn from us. I have already said that for this reason we should not sit back and be complacent, but that we should have an open mind as far as these matters are concerned, and that we should make the necessary adjustments as far as they can be pedagogically justified. I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that this will be the approach of my department also as far as the care of mentally retarded persons is concerned.

He pleaded for adequate financial provision to be made. I can reassure him on this score and point out that the subsidy basis is set out fully in the latest annual report of the Department of National Education. As far as this matter is concerned, these training centres will not suffer from lack of assistance. As far as loans are concerned, I am, of course, in the hands of the Treasury. This will depend on the available funds authorized by the Treasury. However, it goes without saying that we shall do our best to place this service on the best and most sound basis as soon as possible.

The hon. member again spoke out in favour of the many trained persons who are at present in the employ of these centres. I agree with him wholeheartedly that some outstanding persons have been engaged in this type of work for a considerable time. They have gained valuable experience and consequently it would be foolish of the department to cast these people aside. As a matter of fact, it is inconceivable that we will do such a thing. We simply cannot maintain the service without their co-operation. I can therefore reassure him on that score. As far as the programme of activities is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that we have appointed one of our officials who has been and is still visiting the centres, not only to inspect the buildings, but also to inquire into the particular needs of each of these centres. This information will be submitted to our planning section, where all these matters will be dealt with. We shall try to do whatever we can. After all, we are proud of our achievements in the past, and we should like to make a success of this new service which has been entrusted to us in such confidence. I also want to tell the hon. member that we maintain the closest liaison with the Department of Health and the Human Sciences Council.

When one is looking for a site, one obviously considers the environment. It is not always an easy thing to obtain a suitable place, because one is to a large extent dependent upon the well-being of the local community and particularly the local municipality. However, it would not be fair of me to say that the treatment we have had from all these local authorities up to now has not been reasonable. Wherever they are able to help us, they are prepared and willing to do so. We believe that this will also be the case as far as these centres are concerned.

The hon. member for Standerton asked that children under six years of age should be included as well. Of course, to do this would be to go outside the scope of this legislation. For that reason I am unable to consider this matter at this stage, but I think that the experience we are going to gain in this work will teach us what to do in this respect. If it is necessary to effect any changes, this can be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have replied to all the points that were raised. I want to conclude by expressing again my sincere gratitude to hon. members for the positive contributions they made towards the discussion of this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendments standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 35, after “compensation”, to insert “and to make restitution of land taken for temporary use,”; and
2. (2) to insert the following subsection to follow subsection (1) of the proposed section 2:
3. “(2) In the application referred to in subsection (1) the applicant shall set out—

1. (i) the purpose or object for which land is taken for temporary use; and
2. (ii) the period for which the temporary use of such land is required:

With regard to the first amendment, I do not want to reiterate what I said last night in regard to expropriation and the effect of taking land for temporary use, save to underline the fact that land taken for temporary use must be returned to the owner at some stage. As this proposed new section reads at the moment, there is no definite obligation upon the expropriating authority, which is the undertaking, to restore the land taken for temporary use to the owner thereof.

When one refers to the proposed section 2(2), one finds that this subsection merely deals with certain matters which the Minister may go into before granting his approval. It seems to me that there should be an additional provision in this connection. That is why I have moved my second amendment, to insert a new subsection to follow subsection (1) of the proposed section 2. The intention is that the other subsections, from subsection (2) onwards, would then be renumbered and would follow on from the subsection I have proposed. It is quite clear what my aim is in moving this amendment, namely that temporary use should be considered to be use for a period not exceeding five years. I think I amply demonstrated this last night when I explained how land taken for temporary use, could be converted into a form of temporary use which, in fact, becomes permanent use. To obviate such temporary use, eventually becoming permanent use. I have moved the second amendment, the idea being that when the first period of five years has elapsed and the undertaking then requires the land for a further period, the undertaking is then obligated to make a second application for this land for a further period of five years. When that happens, the undertaking will then be required to pay compensation under the circumstances then prevailing. I do not wish to labour the point, but as I indicated last evening this would be an incentive to the undertaking to complete the job for which it required the temporary use of the land within the first period of five years. It is quite obvious that the undertaking would obtain the temporary use of land for the first period of five years at far less compensation than for a subsequent period of five years after the first period of five years had elapsed.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the reasons advanced by the hon. member for this amendment. It is not an unreasonable suggestion, and I want to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for having raised the matter in good time. It has enabled me to go into this matter thoroughly once again.

†I think the only difference between us really is that the hon. member for Wynberg would like to see a specific period stipulated. He has moved an amendment to that effect. The way we see it, it is necessary to look very closely at any attempt to expropriate, no matter what the expropriation may be. However, I think this is more true than ever where one is dealing with a temporary expropriation. I am in complete agreement with that; however, I do not think it is practical to tie the hands of the expropriating authority by stipulating a specific period. That is why we adopted the view that it would be better to give the Minister power to attach conditions to any such transaction. This, in fact, means that the Minister can attach a condition relating to restitution and he can certainly also insist on a period of time. I think that the only difference between us is that the hon. member for Wynberg would like that to be obligatory. I think it is really a difference of view. We have gone into this thoroughly. In drawing up this amending Bill I think I can say that we have tried to go out of our way to protect the other party, far more so than has happened in the past. This undertaking must be a declared undertaking in terms of the Act; in other words, it must be one which has been declared to be an undertaking in the national interest. Secondly, the Minister must approve of a written application, and compensation must be paid; all this is specifically laid down. The Minister is given the right to impose conditions, and this, of course, brings us right into the ambit of this argument advanced by my hon. friend. Then, of course, it is quite clear that the right of use of land can be temporary. It is also specifically stated that the Minister can in fact reduce the size of the land if he is satisfied that not as much land as is being asked for is necessary. Sir, this is all evidence of the extent to which we do wish to protect the other party. The Minister will quite obviously go into the matter very closely, and if he can attach a time limit to a temporary expropriation at the time, I have not the slightest doubt that that is how he will approach it, and we will make quite sure that that is clear. But there are cases where it would be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to determine a period, and it is for that reason that we prefer to leave the clause in this form, and we will obviously differ on that point.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I do not know whether the Minister has completed what he wants to say.

By all means, ask your question.

Can the hon. the Minister give us an illustration of those cases in which a time limit on temporary use cannot be imposed?

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult because in a sense this is hypothetical, but I think it is possible that an undertaking falling within the ambit of this Act may decide that it wishes to have the right to carry water in a certain course for just a period to a power station. It is going to be temporary because it may envisage that later on it will do it in a more effective way, but it may not be able to say at the time that the land will be required for six months or twelve months or two years or five years, because it cannot be quite sure what the other arrangement is going to be and when it can be put into effect. The other arrangement may be tied to a big irrigation scheme or the construction of a dam. That is one valid possibility which occurs to one immediately, but there may be better examples. I think it would be very difficult in these circumstances to tie us down to a specific period, but the intention is quite clear. We have introduced this in order to give more protection to the other party. Mr. Chairman, I think that is about all I really can say. I am sorry that we cannot see eye to eye. The hon. member’s request is not an unreasonable one, but from the practical point of view I must stand by the clause as printed.

I just want to mention to the hon. the Minister that we are struggling with this problem in the Select Committee on the Expropriation Bill, as the Minister knows. I want to urge on the hon. the Minister the necessity for stating a period. He can appreciate as an economist, the difficulty anyone will have in assessing adequate compensation in the case of a temporary dispossession, especially if it is farm land or arable land, highly productive land which is used for a purpose of that nature. A temporary period of one year may not mean very much, but if this period becomes longer than one year and this temporary period extends beyond 12 months, it may require all manner of reorganization of a person’s business or undertakings which are contiguous to that particular piece of land. So whilst one appreciates that there are difficulties, the hon. member for Wynberg has correctly pointed out the need of providing for all possible occasions. We believe that on all occasions a period should be stipulated. After all, the dispossessed owner has no means of even assessing for himself how long the temporary period is likely to be, and the expropriating authority could surely bind itself to a period of time—which can be lengthened later; there can be a further expropriation—because then there is a set period of time for which compensation is paid.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Green Point has raised an important point. The mere fact that you have to determine compensation means, I think, very clearly that you will probably have to make a decision on the length of time. If it is a temporary expropriation, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to make a meaningful assessment of compensation unless you have a time period in mind. One can then of course argue it both ways. You might then say it is better to fix the time period in order to simplify the calculation of compensation. On the other hand, the sort of approach that we are taking is that because that is so because to make a meaningful calculation of compensation you should have a very firm idea of the time, this will really force the parties to clarify their minds as to the period of time, because of the mere fact that you must make a meaningful calculation of compensation. To me that is a further pressure really on the parties, and let us say on the expropriating undertaking, in fact to clarify its mind, and the Minister’s, on the time period. I am perfectly certain that in practice this is going to mean that in the great majority of cases they will in fact have to make a decision like that.

We would like the pressure to be made compulsory.

Yes, I know. This is the only difference. I am glad that point was raised because it is very relevant, but with respect it still does not move me to change this to force the authorities to state a period in every case.

Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss to understand the Minister’s argument, because he says that if in fact it comes to a question of compensation, the parties will have to agree to a time, otherwise the compensation cannot be properly calculated. By the same token, if the expropriating undertaking says: “Look, we cannot be bothered to tell you when the time is going to be up for the use of this land and as far as we are concerned we may need it for 10 years or 15 years, or we may need it for 20 years,” then the simple way out of that is merely to compensate the owner as at that time for the entire loss of the land. It might be in that case that the actual amount of compensation paid is very small. I gave the illustration last night of a railway line from Sishen to Saldanha, where the amount of compensation for a relatively large piece of land would be very small indeed for temporary use. I believe that this would put no constraint at all on the expropriating authorities. But I think what is interesting is that the hon. the Minister said that he would see to it that in fact the time limit would be imposed in all cases where practicable.

If it could be done.

Obviously, if it could not be done, it would not be practical. The point is that if the hon. the Minister will be prepared to give an undertaking to the House that he will insist on the time limit in each case, where practicable, then I believe that we should be satisfied with that assurance. We hope of course that the hon. the Minister’s successor will also honour that undertaking. I see the difficulty. I believe that it would be better to enshrine these principles in the Bill before us but if the hon. the Minister says that it cannot be done, if he cannot see his way clear to do so, then I shall leave the matter at that. If he will give us the assurance for which I have stipulated and is prepared to have it placed on record that this is an assurance on the part of his department for time immemorial, then I believe that this would be almost as good as having this principle enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, it will, of course, not be possible for me to bind my successor. However, in the spirit in which this Bill has been debated, I find no difficulty in giving the assurance requested by the hon. member for Wynberg. The whole object of these provisions is to ensure that where one can proceed on a temporary basis, one will not proceed on a permanent one. I think that the hon. member went a little far in interpreting what I said. I can give him the assurance, however, that if it is at all practicable, we will certainly wish to make use of this provision. There is no question about it. I can certainly give that assurance here.

I might just mention that the hon. member for Green Point also referred to the fact that there is at present a Select Committee that has been appointed to inquire into the broad issues of expropriation. It will obviously be very interesting and important to all of us here to know at a later stage what the specific recommendations of this Select Committee will be. We are anxious to put this Bill through in order to have wider powers than these organizations now have because in one or two cases it is very important that they should proceed. We will obviously be greatly influenced in the future by the recommendations which emanate from this inquiry. We will most certainly review the position at some future date in the light of these recommendations. However, there could be some delay in this regard, and we must proceed immediately. I can also give the assurance that we are going to look at that amendment very closely in the light of this one. I sincerely hope that my hon. friend will accept that assurance which I most certainly do give him.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

In moving the Third Reading, there is not much I can add. I should merely like to thank my hon. friends on both sides of the House for the very constructive discussion we have had and for the contributions they have made. I hope we may be able to proceed on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is happy that the hon. the Minister has given an assurance in regard to one of the aspects of this legislation, viz. the temporary use of land. The assurance he has given is that wherever practicable, a time limit will be placed on the temporary use of land. Hon. members on this side of the House are prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance and we hope that the hon. the Minister may be able to persuade his department to see to it that this assurance will be carried out also by his successors in office.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I raised two points. The first was that it was not desirable to apply this to South-West Africa unless it was necessary for this House to legislate for South-West Africa. South-West Africa should be left to determine its own affairs to the maximum extent possible. Secondly, I raised the question why this amendment was being sought. No answer was given to either of these questions. I raise the questions again now because section 19 of the principal Act applies this Act to South-West Africa already. There seems to be no reason, constitutionally or otherwise, why South-West Africa cannot legislate for itself in this regard even though I agree that there should be a degree of uniformity between South-West Africa and the Republic in this regard. With great respect, no answer was given to either of these questions while I think that the hon. the Minister owes an answer to this House on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville advanced no further arguments apart from those he advanced during the Second Reading. I do not want to discuss the argument concerning South-West Africa, but he wanted to know why this amendment to the Act was serving before the House.

In 1968 this Act, which deals basically with exorbitant interest, was considered by a Select Committee. That Select Committee decided that 12% would be the maximum interest applicable to amounts of more than R400 which are lent out. We must remember that the conditions prevailing throughout the country in 1968 were quite stable. The monetary conditions were stable …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is discussing clause 2. He seems to be unaware of the fact that we are dealing with clause 1 at the moment. Is he entitled to discuss clause 2 when we are dealing with clause 1.

Order! The hon. member must please come back to clause 1.

The hon. member for Yeoville must contain himself. I shall come to the point in a moment; he will then hear what it is all about. He is just being a little hasty.

He is being forward.

I was referring to the interest rate of 12% which was fixed at that time. The interest rates were fixed under normal economic conditions in South Africa and throughout the world. Since then circumstances have changed and the capital market became exhausted. The interest rates outside South Africa have increased tremendously and a shortage of capital was experienced in South Africa. The result was that this interest rate of 12% was no longer …

Order! We are dealing with clause 1. It deals with the territory in which the legislation is applicable.

Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I said I did not want to speak about South-West Africa. I am sorry. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville asked why we have to refer to South-West Africa. The reason is that we are introducing into the amending Bill the term “in the Republic”. If we want to make this Bill applicable to South-West Africa as well, we must include South-West Africa specifically. That is, of course, completely consistent with our policy in all these matters. All legislation regulating national financial matters is applicable to South-West Africa. The one we are dealing with today is specifically applicable to South-West Africa; therefore it must be provided for in the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg will now be able to reply to me, but he does not quite know yet what I am going to say so I suggest he should listen first. Firstly, I want to move the two amendments standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 17, page 5, after “(1)”, to insert “shall be effective for a period of twelve months from the date of promulgation thereof, unless extended by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and, if made”, and
2. (2) to add the following subsection at the end of the clause:

I would like to motivate these amendments. The first amendment says that the proclamation which may be made in order to change interest rates should be effective for a period of 12 months from the date of promulgation unless it is extended by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The reason for this amendment is, firstly, that we accept as a principle that in the changing economic and financial circumstances of South Africa, it is necessary to be able to deal quickly with situations which arise. It is for that reason that we support the principle which is contained in this clause and why we supported the Bill at the Second Reading. Interest rate patterns worldwide alter dramatically. There are other factors which affect interest rate patterns and it may be necessary in the national interest for a Minister or a Government to act quickly. We accept that principle completely. I drew attention to the fact that that had already been suggested in 1926 when this concept was originally introduced. But interest rates are a tremendously important matter to the community as such; they affect all people—whether they be high, whether they be low or whether they be rich or whether they be poor. It is Parliament which has the final responsibility in respect of the application of interest rate patterns to the economy and to the community at large. It is therefore wrong that Parliament should abdicate this function entirely. While we accept that we may have to act urgently and while we wish to give the power to the Government to act urgently when it is in the national interest to do so, we do not believe that Parliament should abdicate this vital power indefinitely. For that reason we say that you can act and that you can let it run for up to 12 months but that in the final analysis you must come to this House and account for what you do. You must in fact allow this House to express its views as to whether in fact the policies which are being followed are the correct ones or not. The final responsibility rests here in this House and I do not believe that we should abdicate this function. That is why we give the powers to act quickly but at the same time we wish to have the final say in this House. I must tell you, Sir, with great respect, that I find it somewhat difficult to appreciate the attitude of the Progressive Party in this matter. When this matter was raised in the House in the Second Reading debate the Progressive Party were prepared to abdicate the functions of Parliament and support the Government on this issue and, in fact, to allow themselves to be put in the position where they in fact wanted the Government, the Minister, to have the final say and not Parliament. They supported the Government on this issue, something which I find remarkable. I hope that, having had time to reflect on and consider the matter, they, too, will realize that what they did at the time amounted to an abrogation of a fundamental function of Parliament. The responsibility lies with Parliament and it should have the final say in respect of this particular matter.

That is not nice.

“That is not nice”—is that what the hon. member said?

It is not nice to speak against your own people.

I do not think the hon. member should use the word “nice”. There are other things on that side of the House which are not nice either, and perhaps the hon. member is one of them.

†There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. A little later we might have to say some more about it. The application of the interest rate pattern and the exercise of this powers is one which is of the utmost importance in the present state of the economy of South Africa. It affects businesses and the ordinary man in the street. One of the matters which I would now like to draw to the attention of the hon. Minister, is the fact that high rates of interest in fact feed inflation. High rates of interest are not really the deterrent which causes the recessionary tendency which is hoped for. In fact, the effect of high rates of interest is to increase costs. One of the reasons why costs are increasing at the present rate, is that the cost of financing work and the importation of goods while the cost of production is going up inter alia—certainly not exclusively—by reason of the high cost of money. It might perhaps be said in passing that the introduction of the R2 note at this stage is not inappropriate, since it appears to be a note with a purchasing power of R1 in present circumstances.

I also want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the use of these powers, for instance in regard to participation Mortgage Bonds. May I draw his attention to the fact that the rather strange situation exists that if you have a bond which was registered before 14 August of this year, you are entitled to an increase rate of interest beyond a limit laid down, but if you registered the bond after that date, you cannot increase the rate of interest. You have the rather strange situation that some participation in bonds under a specific participation scheme could be issued at one rate of interest, and other participations could be at another rate of interest—something quite remarkable and unnecessary to add to the complications of the present interest rate structure in South Africa. I am concerned, we are concerned, and, I believe, South Africa is concerned that, in so far as the escalating interest rates here affect us, something must be done in order to limit this tendency. Something must be done in order to deal with the question of the high rates that are paid in respect of home-ownership and the high rates which hinder the development of business, rates which can only be regarded as unsatisfactory when one considers the growth of South Africa. Growth is the answer to many of South Africa’s problems—social, political and economic. Inflation can be met if we grow out of it. Our social needs can be met if we grow faster, produce more and people earn more. Interest rate patterns have a fundamental effect in respect of this matter.

If we look at the provision which deals, not only with the question of raising interest rates, but also with the question of raising the finance charges, we find that one of the anomalies at the present moment is that the rates in respect of leasing and hire purchase, the finance charge rates in the ordinary course of affairs, have not been increased, while the cost of money to finance those activities has been increased. The result is that the man in the street is finding it increasingly difficult to obtain money for the purchase on credit of what in some cases are essential household requirements. This part of that industry is being affected by this because the effect of this is to act as a dampener on these matters. It is all very well to say that this should be dampened, but what is going to happen to the production, which we want to increase, what is going to happen in respect of factories that should be started and what is going to happen in respect of television which is going to need finance? All these matters require the attention of the hon. the Minister because they are not purely interest-rate matters; they are also social economic matters thus affecting the structure of the country as a whole. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should, in the application of the powers given to him, exercise the greatest of discretion to ensure that our economy is being directed in the correct manner and that, in fact, it is a growth economy and an economy in which the poorer people are protected.

I now want to proceed to the second amendment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that, unfortunately, I was too quick in getting off the mark on two occasions this morning. But then again it is also a fact that the person who has never made a mistake yet, is no longer alive because he died as a result of the first mistake he made.

I have listened to what I want to call a lecture on interest rates and the implications thereof on the financial conditions of the country. But this does not really have anything to do with the amendment and the proposed amendment to the principal Act. I believe that, through the arguments he advanced, he really made out a case for the rejection of his amendment. I believe that the amendment he proposed was not really a well-considered one and for one reason only. What is the Minister asking for by means of this amendment to the principal Act? The Minister asks that the ceiling laid down by the Usury Act, the ceiling which was not a monetary instrument at that time, but had been introduced to protect the borrower of money in South Africa from being exploited, should be raised. He asks that it should be possible to raise this ceiling by way of regulation because the capital market has changed throughout the world. There was an outflow of money from the country and recognized financial institutions were no longer able to lend out money at that rate of interest. Therefore the Minister asks for the power to be able to raise that rate of interest by way of regulations when, and if necessary. The hon. member admits that this is the principle of the Bill, but nevertheless he moves a peculiar amendment which states that it will still be possible to do so by way of regulation, provided it is limited to 12 months. Should it be necessary to extend the period or to change the rate of interest, this may only be done with the prior approval of Parliament. If his amendment is accepted, it will have the effect of frustrating that which the Minister proposes to do. What happened? We have monetary measures which are being applied throughout the country to be able to control financial conditions as and when necessary, or when it becomes important to do so.

The original and basic function of the principal Act was to put a stop to usury, to prevent exploitation, but it has now become a monetary instrument which has to be used in conjunction with all the other instruments. It can now be used to increase the interest rate so that the inflow of funds into the country can be channelled to the recognized financial institutions, for if this does not happen, those funds will find their way through the side channels to the grey market and end up in those labyrinths which cause the Government and the recognized financial institutions to have no control over funds in the country. This is the first point.

The second point is that this Act now also becomes one of the instruments which can be used in order to protect the balance of trade because there will be an inflow of money into the country when it is able to earn interest at a high rate here. It is also used to stimulate growth in the country. Therefore this becomes the monetary instrument, and I think this is the point the hon. member loses sight of. The hon. member admits that it is not essential for the Minister to take steps. But suppose world circumstances have changed so drastically, within six months after the interest rate had been increased, that it again becomes necessary to effect some changes. In terms of this amendment moved by the hon. member, it will not be possible for the Minister to effect these changes. Nevertheless, he says the period should be limited to 12 months. No, I think his whole argument does not comply with our requirements. It surprises me that the hon. member for Yeoville can come along with an amendment such as this. I think he is impairing his image as a liberal reformer, for this is an extremely conservative amendment, an amendment with a braking effect. He takes it amiss of the Progressive Party for not supporting his amendment. I think the Progressive Party—this I will admit—holds a more realistic view of what is going on on the money market of the world. He referred to a speech made by Sir Ernest Oppenheimer when pleading for the same amendment in earlier years. Sir Ernest Oppenheimer spoke from experience of what had happened in Germany after the First World War when prevailing conditions in the world were quite unstable at that time. I think this is the crux of the whole matter. Today unstable conditions are prevailing on the capital markets throughout the world and to be able to keep pace with this and implement a sound economic policy it is essential for the Government to take steps whenever it becomes necessary to do so. Hence the amendment and the request that steps should be taken by means of regulation. The Minister has to Table the regulations he promulgates in any event. The regulations will then receive the attention of the House. If the hon. member for Yeoville at any time wants to criticize these regulations, he will be able to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I think I made a mistake in objecting to the hon. member talking to clause 1 because his argument now is much more relevant to clause I than it is to clause 2. Unfortunately he does not understand what interest patterns really are. He started off by saying that usury legislation is not to be used as a monetary instrument and having said that, he added that it should, in fact, be used as an instrument for monetary purposes. Because of the hon. member’s difficulty, I should like to explain to him …

Did the hon. member hear me say in the first instance that this legislation was usury legislation originally and had become a monetary instrument?

I shall reply to the hon. member. The difficulty is that not only do I not understand him, he does not understand himself either. Sir, if you look at the 1926 legislation and at the arguments which were advanced at the time in respect of the Usury Act, which I have taken the trouble to look at—and I am sure the hon. member has not—you will see what arguments were advanced at the time. I took the trouble to quote here what Sir Ernest Oppenheimer said. If the hon. member had read this, he would have seen that in fact interest rate patterns have always been regarded not only as a social matter but that they are important as a monetary instrument. Sir, the point which is important is this, and this is where the hon. member does not understand what the issue really is: The Minister will have the power in terms of this amendment to make the changes as they are required as a matter of urgency, and those changes will remain in force for a certain period: they do not have to remain in force for 12 months; they can be altered, three weeks later or three months later or six months later. Sir, the period of 12 months was chosen because Parliament must meet within that period, and Parliament will then be able to put its stamp of approval or disapproval on whatever action was taken. The final arbiter should be Parliament, but the necessary changes can be made in the interim. Sir, there is strong support for what I want to say in the report of the committee of inquiry into the Usury Act in 1967. If the hon. member would like to borrow this report, I will lend it to him, and he will then see that at page 21, in paragraphs 192 and 193, the following points are made—

and the hon. member must listen to this—

The reason is that interest rates are so important that in fact Parliament should have a say in regard to them, but now that there are circumstances which may require urgent action, we accept that it may be necessary from time to time to make urgent changes, but we do not want to surrender Parliament’s power in this regard.

Sir, I should like to deal now with the second amendment. The second amendment arises from the wording of the beginning of this paragraph, in which it is said—

Sir, that provision is the old provision in the Act, and it was perfectly in order while you did not have the power to make changes from time to time, but now that you have the power to make these changes, the situation can arise that at the time the interest rate is stipulated for, one rate could apply but that another rate could apply at the time when the rate is demanded or received. It is quite obvious that what should be allowed to be recovered is the rate of interest which was stipulated for in the first instance. Let us take the moneylender who borrows money at one rate and lends it at another rate. Let us assume that the amount is due in a year’s time and let us assume that the rate is 14% In the meantime the rate could be reduced to 12%, and in terms of the existing provisions of the law, it would mean that the moneylender could then not recover the original contractual rate of 14%, but only the lower rate of 12% because the Act as it now reads provides that he may not demand or receive a higher rate than that stipulated. Sir, I do not believe that this could have been the intention of the Minister in introducing this legislation. I believe that what the Minister intended was that whatever rate was agreed to which was a legitimate rate at the time it was agreed to could be recovered when the debt had to be paid. I believe that the reason why this anomaly has crept in here is that amendments have been effected to the subsection but have not been effected to the preamble in subsection (1), and that is why I move this amendment because this will enable you to recover the rate of interest for which you legitimately stipulated at the time you completed your contract. This is only equitable and it is only logical that this should be permitted.

I think we should clear up the point which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. When he spoke during the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister of Finance and I were under the impression when he sat down, and indeed I have a copy of his speech in Hansard here which does not make it clear, that what he was proposing was that the hon. the Minister should not have the right to move this rate around except after 12 months had elapsed. Now that the hon. member for Yeoville has made it entirely clear what he meant, we have absolutely no problem in supporting both his amendments and we will do so.

I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward here. I should just like to say that I think it is common cause throughout the House that obviously we have to have far more flexibility in this matter. In the times in which we are living, with economic conditions changing as rapidly and on as large a scale as they are, particularly where interest rates are changing so rapidly in all countries of the world, we have quite clearly to introduce much more effective and much more flexible machinery to cope with this particular problem. I think that is accepted. Now the question is this. If we do this by regulation, should we then say that this can only be done for a specific period? The hon. member for Yeoville has moved that it should be for 12 months. I think, Sir, if we look at the long-cherished tradition of financial conservatism which all Ministers of Finance in this country have followed, and which is still being followed, this tradition of prudence and conservatism, I really cannot think that this can involve any dangers at all—giving the Minister of Finance this discretion to change the rate on moneylending by regulation. That is conceded. I think that initially the hon. member spoke about the need for legislation, but has since changed his mind. The question is now whether we should set a time limit on it. I really think that where I would differ strongly from the hon. member is where he said that the Minister was assuming the powers of Parliament; in other words, that he was by-passing Parliament. That surely cannot be correct because, as the hon. member for Pietersburg has said, in all such cases the amending regulations will have to be tabled in Parliament and Parliament will have a full opportunity to review the position. In other words, there could be a debate each time this happened, and Parliament would have the fullest opportunity to review the charges from time to time. Our great worry is lest we have a clumsy measure or a clumsy procedure or method which in fact could negate the whole purpose we are trying to achieve. I think I would certainly take issue with the hon. member for Yeoville where he argues that we are trying to by-pass Parliament, because these amending regulations must be tabled from time to time and Parliament would most certainly have an opportunity to express its views. That is the one aspect, and that being so, I would find it very difficult to accede to the request made in his amendment. The hon. member also made certain remarks—while we are talking about these rates—in regard to the rates on participation bonds. Now of course the rate of interest on participation bonds is not a matter which is regulated or controlled under the principal Act. That comes under the general pattern of interest rates which is dealt with quite differently.

The maximum.

It is perfectly true that it applies to the maximum. Any money lent for the purpose of investment in participation bonds will clearly, as far as the maximum rate is concerned, be controlled here. That is perfectly correct. Then I think the hon. member referred to the very high rates of interest and said that these high rates of interest which we see throughout that world are inflationary. Quite clearly, if you have high rates of interest and if borrowers continue to borrow and to use that money at the high rates of interest, this must increase their costs, thus adding to the cost inflation. I have no quarrel with that at all. Of course, we are living in an extraordinary financial world. Time was, in the not so distant past, when one of the surest ways of countering inflation was to raise interest rates. This was one of the great classical measures adopted.

We are living in a financial bubble.

Classical measures change.

It was the same with taxation and the fiscal measures. In the old days the classical economists and the Ministers of Finance, if there was an inflationary tendency, would increase taxation, take money out of the hands of the public, and by so doing have a successful deflationary or anti-inflationary measure.

There was more discipline.

Unfortunately, it does not operate like that today. If one increases taxation today, everybody asks for higher wages and salaries.

I hope you realize that.

Yes, I realize that. I hope the hon. member realizes it as well because he got a bigger increase than I did.

Do you want to swop?

I just wanted to mention that. I would agree that one has to look at interest rates with very great care. Unfortunately, of course, in practice we do not have all the discretion that we would like to have. If we are simply going to allow our interest rates to remain substantially below world interest rates or rates of interest in countries trading with us, what has happened in the past will simply continue. We will find that not only will we not attract capital to this country, which is a very important factor in our economic growth, but, in fact, capital will tend to leave the country for those countries with the higher rates of interest. We have to bear this in mind. I am sure that as a practical banker, the hon. member will agree with me. However, this does not mean that we are not constantly and as a matter of course watching interest rates and holding the line wherever we can. However, the need to have greater flexibility in setting the maxima, is absolutely essential. I want to stress the fact that we are not trying to by-pass Parliament in any way at all. We are in fact adopting a method which insists that these regulations must be tabled from time to time in Parliament.

I should also like to refer to the further amendment of the hon. member which leads from his first amendment. The hon. member is concerned that if the finance charge should change, it is possible that parties to a lending and borrowing contract could be prejudiced. I do not think that can happen because obviously existing contracts must be honoured, contracts which stipulate a higher percentage. Let us suppose that the maximum rate of interest were to be reduced. Existing contracts which stipulate a higher rate of interest could not then be amended without the consent of both the borrower and the lender. These provisions refer only to new contracts entered into with effect from the date of the promulgation of this measure. That is our intention. It is not our intention that parties who already have a lending and borrowing contract should be prejudiced in this way at all. One could take the consequential amendments a little further but perhaps it may not be necessary to do so. I just want to make this point to the hon. member for Yeoville because I do not agree with him as to the effect of this measure. There is no intention at all that parties to a contract at 14% are going to be prejudiced if the maximum is reduced to let us say 12% or 10%. That contract must be honoured unless there is mutual agreement on their part to change it. That is all I wish to say in this regard at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the second amendment first. With respect, I think that the hon. the Minister has not appreciated the problem that has arisen here, and that is that I am not talking about contracts which have been concluded prior to the coming into force of this Act, because quite obviously unless legislation is retrospective, it would not affect that type of contract. I am dealing with the contract which may be concluded afterwards. I want to give him the example again. If a contract is concluded after the legislation, let us say on 1 January 1975, and the rate of interest which is then the maximum permissible in terms of the law is 14%, it would mean that in terms of the Act the moneylender would be stipulating for a rate of interest of 14% which he hopes to recover when the debt becomes due, let us say on 31 December 1975. We may find that the economic circumstances in South Africa change in the middle of the year and the hon. the Minister is able to reduce the maximum rate of interest with effect from 1 July 1975 to 12% again. The difficulty which arises is the wording of the first part of this clause. Section 2(1) of the principal Act as amended by clause 2(1) says—

The difficulty is that he may not demand or receive finance charges, irrespective of when the contract was concluded, in excess of the maximum which is in force at that •time. That is the problem that arises. This problem could not arise under the existing Act because there was no power to change the rate. Because you can change the rate now, you can have a situation that a contract is concluded with one rate, the rate is reduced and because of the provision that he may not receive the finance charges at the higher rate, the debtor may say that he pleads the provisions of the Act. Under these circumstances I do not have to pay more than the maximum which is laid down because the moneylender may not receive more irrespective of what the contract stated. That is the anomaly which has crept into this particular piece of legislation.

In respect of the first point I want to say only the following in reply. I want to state it very briefly. I do not want to deal with the economic position and the use of interest as a monetary instrument at this stage, but merely want to draw the attention to the question of the powers of Parliament. The hon. the Minister has in fact draconian powers in terms of other legislation. The 1933 Act gives the hon. the Minister the power to suspend, amend or do anything to legislation in the economic interests of the country. Quite obviously those powers have been very sparingly used and I am happy to say that because these powers which can in fact, be abused. I have no indication that they have been abused, but the interest rates as such are fundamental to the economic structure of the country. This is a most important matter with which Parliament is concerned. Even though it may not be an exciting matter and although it may not be an emotional matter, it remains a matter which affects the country fundamentally. For that reason I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he can have the power to make changes urgently in the matter of interest rates, but Parliament must eventually say whether or not he was right. He should not merely table documents but he must actually come to Parliament if it has to be extended in respect of the particular matter. That is a matter of principle; it is a matter of how you view the matter and whether you would like to have delegated legislation in terms of which you can do anything or whether you believe that Parliament is in fact the final arbiter of this matter. I regret that the hon. the Minister does not want to accept this amendment because it will give him complete freedom of movement. It will enable him to do whatever he wants to do; yet at the same time he will remain accountable to this House, which after all is responsible to the people of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the last point the hon. member has made. In practice it is not as simple as the hon. member suggests. Suppose it becomes absolutely necessary to change this finance charge in September or in August, —Parliament normally sits from January to June—the Minister would have to wait until February before he could do anything about it.

Parliament must sit at least every 12 months.

If the 12-month period has expired and it must be changed, it has to be approved by Parliament then?

No. He has 12 months under any proclamation

But for the following 12 months…

Parliament must sit within 12 months.

I can foresee that there may well be a difficulty here in practice. We feel that by adopting a procedure which ensures that Parliament will not be bypassed, but will in fact insist that this will be tabled at the very next sitting and that we can therefore look at the matter and discuss it fully, this seems to me, and our view on this is very clear, to be a very reasonable and effective way of doing it.

*I wish to refer to the further argument raised by the hon. member for Yeoville concerning the change in the rates of interest. I did not interpret this Bill the way the hon. member did. The whole intention is not to prejudice parties when they lend and borrow money. A note has just been sent to me. According to this note the position is that when the maximum rate is altered, or when an amendment to the provisions of the Act is effected, the amended provisions only apply in respect of new contracts. This is exactly what I said a moment ago.

The Bill does not say so.

But this is so. Of course, this matter has already been thrashed out with the legal advisers. They are satisfied that the proposed provision will only apply to new contracts, after there has been a change in the rate. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer—sometimes I think I am fortunate in that sense—but this is the way I understood and interpreted this legislation from the beginning. The legal advisers are also quite clear on this point. Therefore I find it difficult to take this matter any further. However, I want to make it quite clear again that it is not the intention to prejudice the parties to an existing contract financially. I want to emphasize this fact.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two points. The one is that I think the hon. the Minister and I agree on what the law should read …

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may speak only three times on the same clause.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there is a measure of agreement between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Yeoville, but the law does not actually explicitly say that. I think this is the key point, because people will want to know when they enter into a contract that it cannot subsequently be changed. They want to see this written into the law. The second point I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is that I cannot appreciate grounds of his objection to the limitation of 12 months. As the hon. member for Yeoville has said, the hon. the Minister can change the rate of interest as many times as he likes and that only after 12 months have elapsed since the last change, does he have to come back to Parliament to ask for an extension. He therefore has all the flexibility in the world, because Parliament must sit during any period of 12 months. I therefore cannot understand the grounds for the objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say very much more. We are very clear in our own minds that a much more effective and practical measure would be …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If we are agreed as to the intention of the second amendment and if it in fact turns out that his interpretation is wrong and people take this point in court, will he undertake to legislate retrospectively to protect the vested interests?

The hon. member is of course asking me what is an entirely hypothetical question at the moment. I must be guided by the legal experts, the law advisers, here. The law advisers tell me that uncertainty does not exist. But if this sort of thing happens and people are going to be adversely affected, we will most certainly look at it, because this is not the intention. I just want to say to my hon. friend for Johannesburg North that we feel very strongly that this is an absolutely reasonable and effective way of doing it, namely by amending regulations to be tabled from time to time in Parliament. Parliament can then express its views. It is not as if we are going to change these things every day. If we do not have to change, then, obviously, we are not going to change. However it has become essential to raise that maximum. I think the hon. member will probably concede that too. If it should happen in future, we would like to do it by means of an amending regulation with the safeguard that it will be laid before Parliament, and Parliament can review it in a full discussion. I really cannot take the matter further. There is a difference between us.

Mr. Chairman, in practice I could not agree more with the hon. the Minister because changes are not likely to be frequent. However, at the same time he is asking this side of the House to give up a final safeguard, a safeguard which is a sensible one and the right of both Houses of Parliament.

You can still discuss it in Parliament.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

I am informed that there may be some delicacy about this matter in another field. If the Minister would indicate that, I would be quite prepared to meet him in that regard. Is there no problem?

No, you can go ahead.

The amendment is intended to deal with the following situation: In terms of the provisions as they stand at the moment, the intention is that a moneylender who is outside the Republic —“the Republic” as defined, means purely the Republic as such plus South-West Africa—is not subject to the provisions of the Act if he grants a loan to somebody inside the Republic. We had no objection to that principle, because quite clearly, world monetary conditions and prevailing interest rates in the world must dictate the rates at which we borrow money from outside. I see no problem in that part of the provision at all. However, I see a problem arising by reason of the fact that the territories of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are part of the rand monetary area. The result is that it is quite proper at the present moment to remove money from the Republic to, say, Lesotho, to form a company in Lesotho, to lend Lesotho money to South Africa and then to be exempt from the provisions of this Act., I do not think that this is a desirable practice. I am very happy that these countries form part of our monetary area, and I would like them to continue doing so, even though one country has indicated that it intends over a period of time to secede from the rand area. However, I would not agree that loopholes should be created by means of which people can charge luxuriant rates of interest, e.g. by using mechanisms of this kind. That is the effect of the amendment, and that is why it is being proposed. The second part of the amendment reads “irrespective of where he is incorporated”. That is designed to cover the situation of the South African institutions which operate overseas and which may themselves be party to the raising of overseas money for South Africa so that they should also then not be subject to the Act because they will be raising outside money at prevailing rates overseas. The difficulty which I think has arisen arises out of the use of the phrase “moneylender outside the Republic” which is a new phrase in the draftmanship of legislation, because normally one would deal with phrases such as people who “are incorporated outside”; “are resident outside” or “are domiciled outside”, but in this Bill the phrase is “moneylender outside the Republic”. I believe that there should be encouragement to South African financial institutions to get involved with the financial world outside South Africa so that they will have access to money overseas and will be able to participate in the raising of money for South Africa and for South African institutions. They too should in these circumstances be allowed to raise outside money and at prevailing rates for use inside South Africa.

None of the aspects of the amendment and in fact nothing in our attitude to the Bill has political significance in the ordinary jurly-burly sense of the word. I think that these are matters designed to deal with the improvement of legislation and with the better handling of the economy in the interests of South Africa. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will approach them in that light.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member’s asking whether he should proceed because if he should proceed, he might touch on a rather delicate matter. I do not think that that would be the case. I would merely say that it is perfectly correct that Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland are part of the rand currency area. Obviously, if money is going to go out of South Africa, as the hon. member says, by virtue of the fact that a company is incorporated in one of those countries in such a manner that the money then comes back at a higher rate of interest, there may be an abuse. If that were to happen, then I should think that we would have to look very carefully at it. I myself have had some years of experience in trying to assist in some of the matters of Lesotho, particularly on the financial level, and I have found that there is great concern that any kind of abuse involving the movement of funds within the rand currency area, should immediately be prevented. I think it is simply a matter of what can happen in practice. At the moment there are discussions; we are in fact consulting with these three countries on various matters including the free movement of funds without abuse. It is quite possible—I am perfectly sure of it—that the particular point of view which the hon. member has put will be brought to bear. However, I should like to approach it in the way that we leave it as it is because we would not like to treat the three countries, the “BSL countries” as we call them, differently from the countries outside the Republic as it is described in the clause, unless we find that there is this type of abuse on any scale. If we do find such abuse, we shall immediately review the position. I merely want to say that these countries have shown very great sensitivity towards this kind of abuse within the rand currency area and I should not like us to take any particular step in advance when it may not be necessary and when it may possibly be regarded as—I would not like to use the word “reflection”; that is too strong—some sort of implied criticism. That is my attitude and I do not know how the hon. member will feel about it, but I would not at all be happy to incorporate that in a formal amendment at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I want to approach the matter in a spirit which I think is desirable for South Africa’s interests in this context. If the Minister feels that in the present circumstances it would not be desirable to pursue this amendment, I for one would be happy to accede to his request, and I approach the matter in that spirit. If the rand currency area could be expanded rather than that people should leave it, I for one would be very happy because I think this is part of what could be a very important matter for Southern Africa. I certainly would not like us to do anything to jeopardize what may be important from the point of view of our communications with other States. If the abuse can be eliminated in another way, I am quite happy to leave things on that basis.

The hon. the Minister did not deal with the second part of my problem. If he prefers not to incorporate the first portion of my amendment, I propose the insertion of merely the words “irrespective of where he is incorporated” so as to cover the situation in the sense that South African institutions which have branches outside South Africa would also be exempt in respect of foreign money. Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee I withdraw my previous amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Yeoville for the way in which he has dealt with this amendment. I think that it is very wise and that it will also be appreciated in other circles, where these discussions are now taking place.

†I now come to the second point the hon. member raised. I think he referred to the matter in his Second Reading speech too. He said that if some bank or financial house had an office in another country, that bank should be able to obtain funds at a certain rate of interest above what we prescribe as the maximum. Those funds could then be transferred to South Africa, to the bank’s head office.

No, on ordinary loans.

Yes, on ordinary loans at an interest rate which could then be higher than the maximum rate. In other words, the idea would be one of some kind of ongoing loan.

The only point here is to treat a South African bank which has an office, say, in Germany, in the same way as a German bank. That is the whole point, nothing else.

I think the hon. member has put the matter quite clearly. My difficulty there is that that would put the South African bank here in a preferred position vis-à-vis other moneylenders here. The hon. member will see that.

No, it cannot.

Yes, it must, because it means they could then, in fact, obtain those funds and they could simply attach that interest rate and be in a preferred position in relation to the position of others in South Africa. The hon. member will probably want to tell me where I am wrong, but that is my interpretation. That institution would be placed on a different footing compared with others in South Africa. That is where my difficulty lies.

Mr. Chairman, may I explain this point to the hon. the Minister so that he can see where the misunderstanding is. In so far as an overseas bank is concerned—let us call it the Deutsche Bank, just to give it a name—the intention of this clause is that if the Deutsche Bank wants to lend to Company X in South Africa 10 million Deutsch marks, then the rate of interest which would be applicable would not be subject to the limitations of this particular Act. We have the situation already that a number of banks in South Africa have branches overseas. That same bank operating overseas and getting overseas money, should be put in the same position as a German bank. In other words, if they can get the 10 million Deutsch marks and lend it to a South African institution, they should be no worse off in doing this business. The hon. the Minister says it would be unfair vis-à-vis local banks. I think it cannot be unfair vis-à-vis local banks because it is not local money that is being used; it is money that has to be introduced with the permission of the Reserve Bank because no loans can be brought into South Africa without the permission of the Reserve Bank, so the result is that there is no unfair competition between banks in respect of local money. All that I am suggesting is that those banks which have taken the trouble to establish branches or agencies or representative offices overseas and who have got involved in trying to raise money for South Africa overseas and have built up this connection, should be put into the same position as any bank which is overseas. With respect, Sir, it would create no unfair competition with banks in South Africa. It would not mean that the bank could use the money for itself; it would only mean that the banks could raise a loan for other people at these rates. I repeat, with great respect, that there is no question of unfair competition. All that this means is that in terms of what I believe is the policy of the Government you are encouraging South African banks to go abroad to assist in the raising of money for South Africa and to establish themselves in the international financial market. Sir, this is all I am seeking to do. One of the things which assists banks to establish themselves in the South African market is experience in raising loans for South Africa eventually then they can become part of an international set-up where they can raise loans for anybody in the world. At the present moment, Sir, with respect, you are, without intending to do so, discriminating against a South African bank that wants to enter the market to raise finance internationally for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I still have a difficulty here, and it is this: If a bank in South Africa has a branch overseas, that branch is part of the South African bank, so what you would be doing in fact is that you would be exempting this South African bank from the provisions of this Act.

Only its overseas branch.

Sir, I think we would run into many difficulties as far as monetary policy is concerned. This is the clear view of our financial authorities. What the branch does overseas is part of the activities of the head office in South Africa. We have gone into this very carefully; it would mean that you would be exempting important financial institutions in this country from the provisions of this measure, and we think that this would blunt the monetary instrument very severely. We believe that an acceptance of the hon. member’s amendment would lead to serious implications which we feel we should not risk. I regret, therefore, that I am not able to accept the amendment.

Sir, I really cannot follow this. The hon. member for Yeoville has set out the position very clearly. On the one hand we are told by this Government that this country requires capital and I go along with that, although we disagree over the question as to where our capital has gone in this country. But here we have a provision which can actually discriminate against the ability of a South African corporation or bank to raise capital for this country. The Minister says that if this amendment is accepted he will be faced with monetary policy problems. Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is quite right; you could not bring this money into South Africa without the permission of the Reserve Bank. It seems to me that if we want to develop South Africa we are going to have to raise capital, and therefore the closer the connections we have, the more connections we have and the greater the ability we have to raise money not only in Europe but in America and Japan and other countries and to bring that money into South Africa in a situation where it does not in any way compete unfairly with the local banks, the more we will be promoting South Africa’s interests. I think this is something which everybody should regard as laudable, and I find it very difficult to follow the hon. the Minister’s reasoning.

I feel that the hon. the Minister is confusing the position of a branch of a South African banking institution with that of a separate entity which a South African banking institution might establish overseas. A branch is part of the South African banking institution. The bank could establish a wholly-owned subsidiary company which would be a separate legal entity and which would be able to borrow at the rate allowed under this clause. But the mere fact that a branch is not a separate legal entity prevents it from doing so. I feel there is some confused thinking about this and I would ask the Minister to reconsider what he has said.

No, I do not think I am misunderstanding that point. First of all, let me make it perfectly clear that obviously we are at all times anxious to encourage the flow of capital to South Africa for productive purposes. That has been our whole policy for many years, irrespective of what Government was in power, and this is something which we in fact go out of our way to encourage to this day. So it is not a question of in any way wishing to put a damper on the procurement of funds outside. But you have to look at it from the point of view of the control of financial affairs in South Africa, of monetary policy. We have to have an effective monetary policy.

But the Reserve Bank has monetary control.

If you are going to exempt a whole range—because if you allow it for one you may be perfectly sure that others are going to do so—as I say, if you are going to exempt a whole number of financial institutions in South Africa from the provisions of this clause …

Only for the purpose of bringing in money from overseas.

That is so, but that means bringing in capital at a rate of interest which exceeds what is laid down here. If that is done by South African institutions, it will weaken the control of monetary policy in South Africa beyond any doubt. This is what is said by all our experts who have gone into this matter. For those reasons I regret that I will not be able to accept the amendment, although I am quite interested to see this love pact between the United Party and the Progressives.

Sir, if Barclay’s Bank have a wholly-owned subsidiary in Germany, and they are offered 100 million dollars—that is, they can borrow 100 million dollars for South Africa at a rate above the maximum as stipulated—they have to ask the Governor of the Reserve Bank for permission to bring the money in. Why cannot that money be brought in and treated separately? It does not then compete directly with the money already in the country. Will the Minister tell me why he will not allow that to happen?

The hon. member for Johannesburg North says this money can be brought in and it will in some way be isolated and will not compete with funds in South Africa. That of course is impossible, because you would not bring the money in unless you are going to use it. If it were a case of Barclay’s Bank having a 100% subsidiary doing this, we would certainly look very closely at the position in the light of these provisions, because if that were to be a back-door way of doing it we would immediately wish to tighten up those provisions.

May I ask a question? It surely cannot be your policy to discriminate against South African banks which want to expand into overseas markets, in favour of foreign banks? That surely cannot be Government policy?

No.

Well, if it is not, you must accept this amendment.

No, there are two considerations. There is that consideration. We certainly do not wish to discriminate against South African banks. On the contrary. But we have to bear in mind the responsibility for the proper control of the financial affairs and the monetary policy of this country, in South Africa.

But the Reserve Bank …

I am very sorry. Our very best financial advisers tell us this is of the utmost importance, which I can understand, and therefore I cannot possibly depart from that policy.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand from the hon. the Minister and with a knowledge of the way in which the Reserve Bank operates, what he is now in effect saying is that a 100% subsidiary of a South African bank will be precluded from lending 100 million dollars if the Governor of the Reserve Bank says that we want to improve the reserves and we want to bring in a 100 million dollars. Then that 100% subsidiary of a South African bank will be precluded from doing so whereas any German, American, French or Japanese bank will be able to do it. If that is the case, then I am very sorry to say that we are back in Cuckooland.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member himself says that the position must be considered by the Reserve Bank. That is the first point. We would certainly look at it in relation to the provisions of this Bill.

You cannot; you are stopping yourself.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, we agree with the principles contained in this legislation. There are, of course, matters that have arisen which give us cause for concern. The first of these is that Parliament’s position and Parliament’s power to deal finally with the question of interest rates have in fact been removed as a result of the provisions contained in this Bill. With great respect, this is a matter in regard to which we must record our strong protest.

The second point is that we object to what is obviously a lack of appreciation as to the actual meaning of this legislation before this House. We find the situation arising where South African banks are being discriminated against in favour of foreign banks when it is in the national interests of South Africa that South African banks should be allowed to expand overseas, should be allowed to participate in raising money for South Africa, and should in fact be allowed to create this kind of international financial image. Let me put a very simple point. The Reserve Bank has the absolute authority to decide what moneys should or should not be allowed to come into South Africa in respect of loans. It can decide at any given time what funds should or should not be allowed into the country. What the hon. the Minister has done in refusing this amendment has been to put South African banks out of business because, if they want to raise the money overseas, they have to be subject to the limitations imposed by this Bill, whereas foreign banks that wish to raise this money overseas can do so at competitive rates which are the market rates at the time. With great respect, Sir, I think it is laughable to do this sort of thing and to pass this kind of legislation.

It is unpatriotic.

This is something which I cannot understand. I want to ask the hon. the Minister at least to ask his advisers to look at these provisions once again before it goes to the Other Place so that perhaps the harm which he is doing to South African institutions by means of these provisions can be remedied and so that this unfair discrimination will be eliminated.

There is one other matter which I should also like to deal with and that is with regard to interest rates, the interest rate structure and its effect on the whole question of liquidity in South Africa. We find ourselves at the moment in a very difficult situation from a monetary point of view. We find ourselves in a situation where there is a liquidity squeeze in South Africa which is having a dramatic effect on certain institutions in South Africa. Only this morning a report of great significance has come through to the effect that a major financial and property company in Durban, Natal, is probably going to apply to be placed under judicial management today because of a short-term cash crisis. This was due to the company’s inability earlier this week, so it is said, to meet a large call on deposits triggered off by a wave of withdrawals which forced the company to freeze its money on Wednesday and to suspend its normal operations in Durban. I am told, and I quote—

The lesson that could have been learnt from the United Kingdom is that in a liquidity squeeze you have your property companies affected, your interest rates start escalating, you cannot meet a situation which rises and you create a problem which in fact is extremely difficult to meet. One of the responsibilities which his Government has is to ensure that the crisis of confidence which might break upon South Africa is done away with and that confidence is fully restored in South Africa. I believe that there is no reason for people to panic in South Africa in respect of these sorts of matters. I believe that South Africa is that strong that we should not have the same problems which have arisen overseas. I believe that we can meet this, but I also believe that if the Government continues with its present policy relating to the squeeze of money …

Whom are you quoting?

What do you mean? I am quoting from a report sent to me from Durban by responsible people this morning. If the hon. member wants to know the company that has gone in, I can tell him it is a very serious matter for South Africa. I am trying to create a situation where the hon. the Minister should be asked to make a statement here and now to ensure that there is no threat to confidence in South Africa. That hon. member regrettably does not understand what is going on, and is not concerned about it. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have a situation in South Africa in respect of interest rates about which the hon. member for Pietersburg knows something, where the grey market has played such a part in the South African financial scene that it needs urgent attention on the part of the Government, because we have a situation which is akin to what has happened in the United Kingdom. It is a matter which needs urgent attention. The question of confidence on the part of people who deposit money being affected is fundamental to our whole future in South Africa. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to take every step to ensure that the confidence of people is not shaken, that the liquidity squeeze is attended to, that relief is given and that something is done about the liquidity squeeze because the liquidity squeeze has an effect on the interest rates. What we are fundamentally concerned with today is interest rates, the ability to move them and the ability to use them as a monetary instrument in our economy. I do not believe, we on this side of the House do not believe, the United Party does not believe that it is necessary to have conditions in South Africa which are akin to conditions which have developed overseas in regard to interest and monetary matters. If the Government, however, insists on continuing with this unreasonable liquidity squeeze in South Africa, growth in South Africa will be stifled and a situation will be created where you have more and more bankruptcies and fewer jobs available for people. It is time for the Government to take some urgent action.

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure why the hon. member for Yeoville should have used the discussion of this Bill to talk in the very wide and excitable terms he has about a so-called crisis of confidence, a financial collapse and goodness knows what else. I want to react very positively to the hon. member.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, this debate on this financial measure has now taken a somewhat surprising turn. I think we have been discussing these clauses and the amendments that have been moved from an objective point of view and on merit, but now we have had some very wide-ranging remarks. I think the hon. member for Yeoville has spoken in very wide terms and he has made a few statements here which I really feel called upon to answer.

†I think the hon. member for Yeoville goes very far indeed when he makes the statement that the failure to accept his amendment and the refusal to allow a South African bank or financial institution with an office overseas to bring in money over and above the rate of interest prescribed here as a maximum, will put South Africa’s banks out of action. Then he went on to talk about a crisis of confidence and referred to a big concern in Durban which was apparently on the point of collapse financially, and the implication was quite clearly—otherwise I would not know the relevance—that this was so because there is a shortage of capital simply because the Government adopts this sort of policy. Now of course on that point the Government is setting a maximum of 14% for the lending of money for these purposes. That is the position in terms of the other Act and we now want to bring it under this Act where it properly belongs. We want to be able to mend that by regulation from time to time, in order to make it flexible. What the hon. gentleman is now saying is that if you cannot bring in money at, say, 14½% or 15%, as he wants to do, then it must have this sort of effect on a company which is in financial straits, like the company he mentioned in Durban. What otherwise is the relevance of raising the issue? It must then have nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

Now I just want to say this. Let us be perfectly clear about what this amendment is. The hon. member has asked that we should exempt from the provisions of this Bill a South African financial institution like a bank which has an office abroad from the maximum interest rate or finance charges that are laid down or could be laid down. In other words, if that office of a South African institution abroad can get money at, say, 14½% or 15%, it should be able to bring it in, to be able to make use of it in South Africa, by that South African institution.

No.

Of course. How else does it work in practice? The money must be used here. Now the first point is this. The hon. member says it is absolutely essential that those institutions must be exempted, and he says that if not. South Africa’s banks—I wrote his words down—will be put out of action.

You are talking utter nonsense.

I beg your pardon, Sir; I wrote down the hon. member’s words. The hon. member must not say that.

You are talking utter nonsense.

The hon. member said that if his amendment is not accepted it will put South Africa’s banks out of action, and I take the strongest exception to the hon. member telling me I am talking nonsense. The whole House heard it.

But you are. You are talking nonsense.

I think it is a very great pity that an hon. member, in discussing what should be a perfectly objective financial measure, should become excited and raise these other issues as he did—I am using his words verbatim—and tell me that I am talking nonsense. This is not the spirit in which to discuss financial measures in this House.

I think you should get your facts straight.

I challenge the hon. member to say that he did not use those words. Did you not use those words?

Yes, I said overseas and the overseas banking market …

You said it would put South Africa’s banks out of action. [Interjections.] But we will come back to that.

You had better get Dr. Diederichs to come back.

Yes, he will come back, but I think it is a great pity that we cannot get Mr. Sonny Emdin back, because I sat in this House on many occasions when financial measures were being discussed, and I think all of us on this side of the House, whilst we might have had many points of difference with this hon. member’s predecessor, never had any difficulty about discussing matters responsibly and objectively with him.

But Dr. Diederichs can understand what we are talking about.

The hon. member has a habit of getting excitable and when you bring the matters back to him, then he becomes challenging and offensive. But let us deal with this matter on its merits. The hon. member says these banks must be able to bring that money in and that they must be exempted from the provisions of this Act. I say I cannot agree to that because the very best financial opinions we can get, and that is from the Reserve Bank, the Department of Finance, the Treasury and their advisers, are all absolutely unanimous that if we were to allow that, we could just as well scrap this amending Bill. Because what would happen?

If South African financial institutions are going to bring in money, and they do so on a substantial scale, and they simply say those are the rates at which the money is to be lent out here, what is the use of trying to state a maximum under this Act? And what will happen to the whole pattern of interest rates in South Africa? We have a financial policy. At the moment our policy can be summed up as a moderately restrictive credit policy. That has to be overseen by the Reserve Bank and by the financial authorities, and according to that whole system we have a certain pattern of interest rates, long term and short term and all the rest, which are established in South Africa at this moment. If we are simply going to allow this sort of thing to happen, how can we possibly control the pattern of interest rates and the whole supply of credit in this country? Sir, it is a point which I think my hon. friends must look at a little more carefully.

The hon. member for Constantia associated himself with the hon. member for Yeoville, but the hon. member for Constantia can keep his feet on the ground and can discuss these things objectively, as we have seen. I think that if the hon. member for Constantia looks at this carefully, he will realize that the monetary authorities cannot conceivably carry out an effective policy on credit and money and the supply of credit and hold the balance on the pattern of interest rates if we are going to allow this sort of thing to take place on any scale. And if it is allowed for one or two institutions, any number of them will do so because there are a large number of them. I want to say again that when I take up this attitude, which I do with conviction after a careful study of the facts, I am in fact basing my views on the unanimous opinion and advice of the very best financial authorities we can use in this country. So the matter is not as simple as all that, and of course if you say that this is an essential matter and it must be done straight away, then what you are saying is that you cannot bring in money at up to 14%. If this is such a serious practical matter, that you must be able to exempt these institutions now, then surely, Sir, you are implying very clearly that you will not be able to bring in this money at 14% or less, and that is not the situation in practice at all.

The fact of the matter, and the hon. member knows this as well as I do, is that you do not pay 14%. If in fact these institutions had to bring money in at 14½% or 15, then the whole purpose of this amending Bill would be precisely to meet that situation by giving the Minister of Finance the immediate opportunity to amend by regulation that maximum. That is the point. Sir. If that is not the position in practice, then we have the means to put it right immediately. But of course that is not the position because we do not have to bring in money at 14%.

But then why should a foreign bank be allowed to do it?

The other point is this. I do want to stress this question of the importance of maintaining our pattern of interest rates and effective control. That is all-important. I do not see the hon. member for Johannesburg North here at the moment, but in the Second Reading debate he agreed with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. This morning when the hon. member for Yeoville took him to task for doing that and not supporting him, he immediately somersaulted and said: “No, I have listened to you and I do support you.” It was quite touching.

Sir, the hon. member spoke a little bit too quickly. I would suggest to the hon. member—perhaps his colleagues will convey this to him—that before he rises to speak in this House, he should look at the implication; of these things a little more carefully. Perhaps his first judgment was very much more correct than his second, revised judgment. Anyway, Sir, I leave him there.

The hon. member for Yeoville then went further and talked about a crisis of confidence and about the enormous difficulties which are overtaking various firms lie-cause of a shortage of capital and the high interest rates. The fact of the matter is, of course, that interest rates in South Africa are lower than interest rates in most countries in the world. I did explain why we cannot keep interest rates in this country lower, which in fact might conceivably happen under economic conditions in South Africa, but our interest rates in this country must bear some relationship to interest rates overseas in order to be able to keep a balance between the movements of capital into and out of the country; that is all-important. We have not got all the discretion to be able to do simply what we like about interest rates; we must bear these other tendencies in mind. But in a discussion of this sort of technical measure, surely that does not justify the wild statement that there is a crisis of confidence developing and that all sorts of companies are in financial straits. The hon. member went so far as to say that I should make an immediate statement. On what does the hon. member want me to make a statement? He knows as well as I do that at this moment in the world economy, of which we form an active part because we trade on a very big scale, the South African economy is in better shape than it has possibly ever been in our history. He knows that it is one of the strongest economies in the world. He knows that well-known countries all over the world today —and I could name any number of them —are faced with vast balance of payments deficits. The major oil-consuming countries, which are the major industrial countries of the world, are faced with balance of payments deficits running between 40 000 and 50 000 million dollars—absolutely unheard of in our economic history. At this moment. Sir, our balance of payments position is remarkably sound. We are also having to pay very much higher prices for oil, but despite that our balance of payments is in a very good position indeed. Sir, the balance of payments reflects the state of your finances vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and it arises out of our trading and financial policies, and since we as a Government are so readily attacked and criticized for the slightest thing that anybody thinks goes wrong, I think the Government can take some credit for this state of affairs. As you know, Sir, there is, of course, one particular index, which is an extremely important and reliable index in summing up the whole state of your economy, almost under one parameter, if you like, and that is the state of your currency. Sir, would any member in this House say that the rand is not in fact today one of the very strongest currencies in the world? One reads here and there that the rand has been devalued in recent months vis-à-vis the dollar. Only a few days ago I saw a report that the rand was not so strong because it had in fact been devalued two or three times in the last few months. Sir, this is a completely wrong way to put it. Everybody knows that our policy is based on a limited managed floating of the rand; we have not tied it unconditionally to the dollar. If the dollar appreciates and we hold the rand where it is, then you cannot say that the rand has been devalued in terms of the dollar. The correct way to put it is that the dollar has been revalued, and that is what has happened. We have not devalued the rand. The dollar has in fact been revalued a couple of times, and that is the correct way to put it. To say that we have devalued the rand is completely incorrect because we have not done so. We have not tied ourselves slavishly to the dollar. However, Sir, despite the way in which the dollar has moved up, the rand is, I repeat, one of the strongest currencies in the world at this moment and nobody can deny it.

The other point I want to make is that although interest rates have risen in South Africa as they have throughout the world, and are in fact high by our standards— nobody denies it—the fact of the matter is that we simply cannot supply the amount of capital which the economy needs at these very high rates of interest. There is an almost unlimited demand for funds. Surely, that must mean that the economy is so strong that even that substantial rise in interest rates has not been able to affect it. That rise in interest rates has not been able to affect the tempo of growth. That is why there is a liquidity squeeze. The banks will tell you that there is such a squeeze, and we all know it. We would like to have more liquidity in some fields in this country. I want to say that it is true that overall the Reserve Bank has been following a policy of moderate credit restriction. I emphasize the word “moderate”. That we must surely concede. We do not want the issue of credit to go on in an unlimited way, so that we are suddenly confronted with a serious demand inflation. We have a cost inflation, and it is very easy to transform this into a serious demand inflation. We must hold the reins, but we are doing it in the most moderate way possible. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, said in his Budget Speech, the great objective of our policy is to stimulate and sustain economic growth. We know that; we must keep our standards of living rising in order to benefit all sections of the population. We have succeeded remarkably well. Our net, or real, rate of growth at the moment is, by all accounts, at least 7% per annum. After one has adjusted for this substantial inflation, one is still left with a growth of 7% in our gross domestic product from one year to the next.

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking at statistics of other comparable countries, other meaningful countries, and I cannot find anything to compare with that rate of 7%. Even Japan, which has maintained a growth rate of 10% to 11% for several years, is now lagging substantially behind us. America is at this moment afraid that she will end the year with a negative real growth rate. Sir, it has been said that certain institutions are in difficulty here. Even in the strongest economies which are running at a growth rate higher than that to which they have been accustomed for years, you will still find a few individual examples of financial stringency, because some businesses are bound to be mismanaged. Not all firms and companies, even in the best conditions, are well managed. But if you jump on those few isolated cases and say that the Minister of Finance, or the person deputizing for him, must make an immediate statement, then the implication is that we are facing a very serious economic situation. It is nothing of the kind. I want to say something in a friendly way to some of my friends in the Federated Chamber of Industries. Not all of them, but one or two of them at their conference recently, said that we were reaching a point where this growth rate had come to an end and that we were now going to start going down. Sir, how can anybody at this moment make such a statement? What can anybody possibly base such a statement on, except the fact that for some reason he has lost heart? [Interjections.] As regards this issue of liquidity, just look at the figures the hon. the Minister of Finance gave in his Budget Speech. Just look at the figures he gave regarding the increase in the quantity of money in circulation, and the increase in credit in the economy These are absolutely unprecedentedly high figures. I say again, therefore, that I think we must keep a sense of perspective. We are in the fortunate position that we are almost leading the world as regards our growth rate, our balance of payments position and our general prospects ahead. I think our normally stiff-backed industrialists and businessmen should not be talking about the waning of confidence or anything of the kind. They should be saying that they have never been more privileged than they are today, to be taking part in the economic development of a country whose economy is absolutely burgeoning.

With those few remarks I hope I have in some measure managed to counter that negative and to my mind entirely unjustified sort of pessimistic view which was expressed earlier in this debate. Coming back to the measure before us, I believe that we have no option; if we are going to continue to control our own financial destiny and if we are going to maintain a proper and practical financial control over our own affairs, we cannot possibly allow that large-scale influx of funds at very high interest rates which would be the sort of thing we would make possible if we were to accept this amendment before us. Sir, I have great confidence in moving the Third Reading of this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we were in the process of generating some heat here and, as this is a Friday afternoon and as I have no aggressive intent, I want to deal with this hon. Minister’s Vote in a somewhat calmer atmosphere. Very little time has been assigned to this particular portfolio which cover not only planning, but also the environment and statistics. Under these circumstances one has in fact very limited time to put to this Committee a point of view. I thought, therefore, that instead of attacking the Government as I have often done in the past, it would perhaps be more profitable if I were to put to this Committee our view of the Department of Planning, how we see its main functions and what some of our major policy objectives would be. It seems to me that this could constitute a framework within which we could have a constructive discussion.

I want to say right at the outset that we on this side regard the Department of Planning as a particularly important one. Perhaps, in general, it falls outside the political arena and in a sense I think it ought to do so. We regard it as important because in this department the general framework within which our country is to develop over a long period of time is laid down. That is why we regard it as being particularly important. In putting before the House our policy objectives, I think it will serve not only the purpose of indicating how we view this issue but also the purpose of indicating where we differ from the Government.

The purpose of this department, as we see it, is to plan and to co-ordinate the physical and the economic development of the country in order to ensure, in the interests of all our people, the optimum utilization of our resources. We would regard this as the fundamental purpose of a department of planning. If the hon. the Minister disagrees with that statement of the primary purpose of this department, we would obviously be anxious to hear from him.

As far as the main functions of this department are concerned, I would imagine that there is no basic disagreement with the Government. I think we would be ad idem on this particular issue, but perhaps I may be permitted to summarize the main functions briefly as we see them. What we would firstly regard as being an important function of this department is that of promoting scientific activities in a planned manner. This of course includes the co-ordination, collection and collation of scientific information. We see this department as the body which is primarily responsible for providing impetus to scientific endeavour in South Africa. As I have indicated, I believe that the Government does not disagree with this, because I am in a sense stating an established fact. I am merely for purposes of the record trying to indicate what I believe the department’s primary functions to be.

Secondly, an important function of this department is to prepare on an annual basis, five-year, and I would even add, ten-year projections of South Africa’s development in macro-economic terms showing optimal solutions. At the moment we have a five-year plan which is prepared by the department. I am not quarelling with that at all: I am merely suggesting that we possibly ought to have a ten-year projection as well. Perhaps the department does that in any case. However, we see this as an important factor for providing the parameters in which South Africa ought to develop.

We would think thirdly that an important function of this department is to plan the demarcation of residential and industrial areas, due allowance being made for the needs of all communities. This was previously called “group areas activity”, but I think it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the times if we referred to it as “demarcation of areas” and particularly if one were to indicate that the needs of all communities had to be met.

Coupled with this is the fourth main function of this department which is to plan the optimum use of land and to apply specific control measures as far as land usage is concerned. This again the department is doing within the provisions that exist at the present time.

I think in the fifth instance what we see as an important function of this department is to promote the development of viable economic growth points.

These as I see them are the five primary functions of this department.

We also have the Department of statistics which is coupled with the Department of Planning and Environment in the sense that the hon. the Minister is also responsible for it. As far as the Department of Statistics is concerned I do not want to take the matter any further except to say that we believe that an important requirement is that the department should supply an adequate statistical service which includes the collection, processing and, in fact, publication of appropriate and up-to-date demographic and socio-economic data which will enable the Government and private enterprise to plan scientifically. I do not want to add any more to this except to say that I think the operative concept is that the information must be up to date, because it is important to have information readily available and up to date, otherwise your planning gets way behind time.

If we accept that this is the purpose of the Department of Planning and if there is general agreement on the broad functions of the department which, as I have indicated, do not differ in any significant way from what the Government is doing at the present time, then it seems to me that we ought to accept certain specific policy objectives. Again I am prepared to say that the Government obviously has its own policy objectives and in a general sense there would be overlapping and there would be agreement as far as many of these objectives are concerned. We, however, would deal with it in our own way. I think that stating our policy objectives will indicate, as I have already pointed out certain material ways in which we differ from the Government.

We would say that an important policy objective as far as we are concerned indeed a cornerstone of our policy, would be that planning should be based on the human and economic needs of our country and not on ideological considerations. We frequently attack the Government on precisely this issue. We have indicated that this department cannot function efficiently because there are too many other considerations which impinge upon the situation. How can you plan the economic growth of South Africa if you have a Riekert report and if you have restrictions on, for example, the labour ratios you have to have? If you have that kind of situation you quite obviously cannot plan in the proper way

A second policy objective from our point of view would be that all research activity done by national research agencies—I exclude here research activity which is specific to particular departments, like agricultural research—for planning and administrative purposes would be grouped under the Department of Planning. We feel that it is only when you have that kind of co-ordination which enables an interchange of staff to take place that many benefits will arise. At the moment there are some 13 major South African national research agencies. I think only one, namely the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, is in fact grouped with this department. For example, the Human Sciences Research Council falls under the Department of National Education and the Atomic Research Institute falls under the Department of Mines. All of them are scattered throughout the whole spectrum of Government activity. We feel that for broad policy purposes, and also from an administrative point of view, it would be important to group them under the general aegis of the Department of Planning.

In the third instance, we are conscious of the importance of research. I do not know precisely what proportion of the South African GNP is at the moment devoted to research. The last figures we were given by the Government suggested that it was in the nature of about 2% of our GNP. If this is in fact correct, we on this side would say that we would certainly be prepared to double that percentage of the GNP which is devoted to research because it is basic research which, in many ways, will determine the future of this country.

In the fourth instance we would, for planning purpose, regard South Africa as a geographic entity. In other words, we would include all the homeland areas. We find this again a very strange issue, quite apart from the Government’s future political planning. How can you conduct a planning activity when major and important areas of South Africa which are in many ways controlling our communication systems and in some ways controlling our main sources of water supply, fall completely outside the area of planning. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is a separate debate going on in that particular corner. The hon. gentlemen over there are obviously not interested in what is being discussed here. For planning purposes then, we would regard South Africa as one geographical entity. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I am not rising to take part in the debate, but merely to give the hon. member for Hillbrow another opportunity to speak so that he may complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for the opportunity he is affording me to round off my speech. I want to assure him that I shall not abuse this privilege.

†In the fifth instance, I should say that what we would regard as a primary policy in respect of this department would be the creation of a master plan to indicate the spatial distribution of population and economic activity which will take into account the reality of the fact that we happen to be a multi-racial or multi-national country. What I am referring to in a somewhat indirect way is what we conventionally refer to as group areas. This activity is taking place at the present time, but I want to add this rider that we, in handling the situation of group areas, would ensure that communities which are likely to be affected by it, would have adequate representation on a demarcation board. It is essential that if Coloureds or Indians are affected by it, they should have adequate representation on these boards.

Lastly, we believe as a policy objective that there should be decentralization of industry in South Africa and that this should be pursued in cases where it is economically feasible and sociologically and strategically desirable. We shall not have decentralization of industrial activity merely for the sake of doing so. If these norms are met we believe it is a good thing and within those broad parameters we are prepared to support it.

I thank the hon. the Minister again for having given me an opportunity to round off my argument because I thought this would create a back-drop to a fruitful discussion on the activities of his department. That is why I have tried to indicate what we consider the purpose of the Department of Planning and its main functions to be. Of course, as I have indicated, one can extend this indefinitely, but I have tried to indicate in brief terms what we see as the major policy objectives.

Mr. Chairman, due to lack of time I shall not react to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said; the hon. the Minister will do so.

I think it is my duty to refer briefly this afternoon to a matter to which we shall return during what one might term the normal session of the House next year. I am referring to the invitation which was addressed to this House of Assembly, too, by the International Society for the Environment. They invited Parliamentarians from this House to attend the third conference of the society, which was held from 8 to 10 April 1974 in Nairobi, Kenya. The hon. member for Mooi River and I were honoured, to be chosen as delegates to that conference. All was set for attending that conference when our embassy at Bonn sent word that the climate in Nairobi was not too favourable for a deputation from South Africa. Eventually it was also apparent from a communication from the Speaker of Kenya, that he would advise us rather not to attend this conference. Eventually we decided against going, and the hon. member for Mooi River and I did not attend that conference. Notwithstanding this fact we were informed of the proceedings and received the minutes of what transpired at that meeting and the resolutions adopted there. In the letter I have before me, the following was said—

We have not yet had an opportunity to do so, but notwithstanding the fact that we were not present, we were given to understand that we are still welcome, and we shall do our duty during the next session.

As we sit here, we all have an interest in the protection of the environment. To many of us, if not most of us, the protection of the environment has virtually become an obsession. If there is one thing about which we should be very careful, it is that in wanting to do our utmost for the protection of the environment, we should nevertheless be very careful not to carry the protection of the environment to the point where it becomes a mistake. For that reason I consider it my duty this afternoon to bring to the attention of this Committee to the way in which a situation which arises when absolutely essential development has to take place is sometimes over-emphasized.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to refer to something which, in my opinion, has really been given unnecessary publicity recently. I am referring to the well-known and much-discussed major freeway which has to run through the beautiful parts of the countryside around Knysna. I want to say that we should be careful not to overemphasize these matters. This afternoon I do not want to argue about the present position, but I want to go back 30 years. I have here a letter dated 6 July 1944 which was written by the then Administrator of the Cape Province, and addressed to the then Minister of Transport, Minister Sturrock. This is a long letter from the Administrator, Mr. Brand van Zyl, who later became Governor-General of South Africa.

Is it a personal letter?

In this letter, in the first place, he quotes a telegram which he sent to the Transport Commission, as well as the reply he obtained from that commission.

Where did you get the letter?

Would the hon. member please keep quiet for a moment. Just give me a chance. The hon. member for Hillbrow commenced this discussion in a totally different spirit to the one which that hon. young member is now displaying. In this letter the Administrator stated his case point by point. If I had had more time, I would have quoted the entire letter. Then hon. members would have been able to see that it seems as though this all took place in the year 1974. I cannot quote everything, but the Administrator said, inter alia—

He went on to point out all the defects in the plan. Inter alia, he mentioned—

I could quote the entire letter. To him this matter was an obsession and rightly so, for as Administrator of the Cape he had to see to the conservation of the environment in his province. Since Major Brand van Zyl was so convinced that he was doing the right thing, he concluded the letter with his trump card. In the last paragraph he told Minister Sturrock—

Mr. Chairman, Maj. Brand van Zyl invoked the aid of all the facts. He told the story exactly as his successors were to do in 1974. Last but not least, he turned to Gen. Smuts. That means a great deal to me. We all know what a nature lover Gen. Smuts was. He then said, which I have not even read out to you, that, if the construction of this road were to have been proceeded with—i.e. the road which is there today—there would have been nothing left of the beauty of Knysna within 30 years. It is stated thus in this letter. Those 30 years have passed, and Knysna is still as fine and beautiful as it was in those bygone years. Minister Sturrock then replied and said that, notwithstanding all those arguments, he gave the assurance that he was absolutely convinced that the people who were building that road there would see to it that the natural beauty would not be spoiled. I want to content myself with that. To those people who plead that the new road should not be constructed and who come forward with other grandiose schemes, I say, on the basis of history and in view of the development which has taken place over 30 years in regard to the conservation of the environment, engineering, transport, and everything related to it, that I can virtually give them the assurance that in 30 years’ time, when our children are sitting in this House, that area will have a freeway which will complement the environment, and the beauty of the environment will not have deteriorated as a result of the construction of this road.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Smithfield has raised matters of importance. Firstly he highlighted the difficulties in which we as a country now find ourselves in regard to international conferences, which I will leave at that. Secondly, he raised the question of nature conservation and pleaded for a realistic approach to those matters which are of concern to posterity. I want to raise with the hon. the Minister this afternoon matters relative to the needs of people of today.

In that regard I want to, in the time that is available to me, remind him that now, in the year 1974, we are celebrating the passage of a decade since the proclamation freezing District Six in the city of Cape Town. It is a matter which has occupied the attention of people in Cape Town and the rest of South Africa now for over ten years. I believe it is also an issue which today is very important in race relations, particularly between the White and the Coloured people. In 1964 District Six was frozen in terms of the Group Areas Act. From that moment the full weight of apartheid was imposed. By freezing, the rights of occupancy, ownership and development were restricted within the confines of persons who qualified, having been classified under the Population Registration Act. A decision was taken then which has been described by some people—I do not want to use excessive language, because I think this is a difficult problem for the hon. the Minister—as having “gouged a deep wound” in Cape society. What was District Six in 1964? Let us remind ourselves. It was an area where the Whites owned 55% of the properties. I do not think their value is material. It was about R17 million. The Coloureds owned 25% of the properties. The Indians owned 20%. These figures represent the interests of these race groups, the vested interests of ownership. [Interjections.] If the hon. members over there, the hon. member for Welkom and others, had any concern for the needs of the Coloured people of the Cape Province, they would not be conducting a private debate in this Chamber; they would do it outside. These people lived out their lives as a community in District Six and they were represented in the following proportions: 5 708 Coloured families, comprising 95% of the population of District Six; 195 Indian families, comprising 3% of the population, and 112 White families, comprising 2% of the population. It is true that District Six had become run-down, substantially a slum area requiring redevelopment, but this was a fact that was recognized by the Cape Town City Council before World War II. It was, in fact, before World War II that they started on the reconstruction of this district by the provision of 483 flats for Coloured persons. In 1962 the Cape Town City Council submitted to the National Housing Commission and to the Department of Community Development, proposals for the redevelopment of that area. These, however, were turned down. They were turned down because the ideology of apartheid had intervened. The council’s proposals were rejected. The removal of people from this area because of race disqualification became the operative policy. What has happened in the interim, over the past 10 years? Some R30 million has been spent in buying up property. By August 1973, 2 767 families had been moved out of this area, 1 500 dwelling units had been demolished and the stage has now been set, after 10 years, for redevelopment. This area is to be redeveloped. There can be no question about that. At this late hour, however, requests and pleas for a change in planning, for the recognition of the needs and the justifiable claims of the Coloured people, must be acknowledged and reconsidered in all seriousness by the department. The people of Cape Town, through their mayor and through their council, have not demanded; they have asked that the Government should permit the people of Cape Town to decide where the citizens of Cape Town will live within the confines of the municipality. There have been other requests to the hon. the Minister to review the position in regard to District Six. In reply to a question which I put to him the hon. the Minister was good enough to tell me who the people were who had made representations. These representations were not made by political agitators or irresponsible people. Representations were made by the Cape Town City Council and the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce makes no money out of the project of this nature. However, they are concerned about an area like District Six where Coloured businessmen can carry on their businesses. Representations have been made by the Church’s Urban Planning Commission. Representations have been made by the Church Council of the Dutch Reformed Church of the St. Stephen’s parish. These are not representations made by agitators; these are people who are deeply concerned about whether we are on the right track in dealing with District Six. The hon. the Minister is aware —he mentioned the fact—that I have been asked by the Missionary Society of the Reformed Church to make approaches to him. Their building was in Long Street, in an unsuitable place, a mission house more than a 100 years old. They had to move out of that area and find a site for their church. They asked the hon. the Minister to give them a site in District Six where they could deal with the large population even of resident domestic servants in the city centre. The hon. the Minister says the matter was satisfactorily resolved and that a suitable alternative site was obtained in Bellhar township, Bellville. That, however, cannot minister to the people in the city of Cape Town. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity, because one is concerned about the position in regard to our relationships in South Africa between ourselves and our Coloured people particularly, and between all the races in this country, to reconsider the position of District Six. Such a reconsideration is not going to be in conflict with what I know are the ideals of the hon. member for Moorreesburg in relation to the development of these people. A reconsideration of the rights of occupation in District Six is not going to compete with those ideals. It is not going to be in conflict with the development of Mitchell’s Plain. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether after ten years we cannot accept the fact that attitudes and circumstances have changed sufficiently to enable us in this House unanimously to ask him to reconsider this position? Today, therefore, I ask this. We are presented with a unique opportunity in this legislative body, in this Parliament, because of the exclusive right that we have over all South African citizens, over citizens who are not represented in this Parliament, to demonstrate our concern for what we believe to be a just claim on their part. I believe that this is an opportunity which we have to demonstrate our determination to defuse tension, to build goodwill and to recognize the rights, the reasonable, responsible rights and appeals of any section of the population in South Africa. The City Council of Cape Town has asked for this, the people of Cape Town have asked for it and it is the people of Cape Town who will live with the changed circumstances. What we have asked is that in the reconstruction of District Six, recognition will be given to the fact that there are Coloured people with deep roots in Cape Town who are entitled not to have to live on the Cape Flats but who are entitled to live here on the slopes of Devil’s Peak; to build their homes with a view over the harbour of Cape Town, with a view over what has been Cape Town through generations of Coloured people. I ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this matter and not to fail South Africa on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, owing to the limited time at my disposal, I shall not venture upon the terrain embarked upon by the hon. member for Green Point. At the start of my speech I should like to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for his visit to my constituency during the course of last year and for the, I could almost say, wonderful effect of that visit. The hon. the Minister and his department deserve the sincere thanks not only of the people of Namaqualand, but also of the entire South Africa for the way in which they brought to the attention of the Government, the possibilities inherent in those regions and for the development that has taken place as a result in the region of Ghamsberg, Aggeneijs and Pofadder. My sincere thanks, too, to the Department of Planning for their intervention, the eventual outcome of which is that Namaqualand is going to have Escom power within the foreseeable future. This was very timely and very necessary action and it was crowned with success.

Sir, bearing in mind the brilliant success the hon. the Minister has had in that region, I want to draw his attention to another part of my constituency in order that there, too, he may possibly be in a position, with his coordinative functions, to meet a very pressing need. I refer to that large area of my constituency west of the national road between Springbok and South-West, and south of the Orange River, the part that lies in the curve of the Orange River. That enormous piece of land, comprising about one million hectares, is for the most part, a Coloured rural area. Sir, we know that we are faced today with the burning question of where to promote the economy of the Coloured. In this regard I want to refer today to a piece of agricultural land that has been disregarded in the past owing to circumstances, because it was inaccessible and because there was no infrastructure with which to start an agricultural industry. But, Sir, in that curve of the Orange, on the banks of the Orange, are approximately 10 000 morgen of the most fertile land in South Africa, where the climatic conditions are more favourable than in any other part of the Republic. I want to make the statement that if that area were once opened up, it would offer a livelihood for about 2 000 Coloured farmers plus the secondary and tertiary industries that would result from it. I want to maintain that it would give the Coloured population great satisfaction to know that there was a region where the Coloured could fulfil his aspirations as an agriculturist. Sir, I do not doubt for a moment that there would be an exodus to that region. The beauty of the whole affair is that, owing to the mining development in those regions, we have already been provided with roads and so on. In fact there remains only one very urgent aspect of the infrastructure that must be provided there, and that is economic transport facilities for the produce of the area. The obvious solution is for a small harbour to be built at Boegoeberg, something that has often been discussed in this House in the past. Sir, the question will immediately be asked whether an agricultural industry could justify the cost involved in the building of a harbour in that area. I want to say at once that we are dealing here with an area whose mineral wealth is equalled by few other areas in the Republic of South Africa. Here I am referring in particular to the cheaper minerals that have to be transported in enormous quantities. If we could start exploiting that section of our minerals it would make that Coloured area one of the most sought-after areas in South Africa. Although not all those mineral deposits are in the Coloured area, I want to say at once that a large part of them are in fact situated there. Sir, when I say that the cost of construction of that harbour will be covered immediately, then I am referring to various things. In the first place, one calls to mind the literally millions of tons of quartzite, usable flat quartzite in that area. At the moment quartzite still has to be imported from Belgium and other countries, while we have millions of tons of quartzite in that area which, owing to the lack of transport facilities, cannot be economically transported to Cape Town and other industrial centres. The second group of minerals one calls to mind is the pegmatites with all the minerals they contain. Time does not allow me to go into this, but one thinks of minerals such as tantalite, berillium, spodumene, etc. We have extensive deposits of phosphates in that region, although they have not yet been prospected. Transport is the only factor causing those phosphate deposits still to be unexploited. We know that there are copper and lead deposits. This is now being prospected and I should like to believe that it will be proved in a short time that in that field too, there are great possibilities. But apart from this, we also have large quantities of limestone and gypsum, large quantities of them, some of the richest deposits in the country. I know of no other place where the two chief constituents of cement are to be found as close together as in that area. If some of those minerals could be exported, I want to prophesy today that the biggest and the most profitable cement factory, not only in South Africa, but in the Southern Hemisphere— and perhaps in the world—could be started there for the direct exportation of cement. I think there are possibilities there and I believe that through the co-ordinating action of the department, planning could perform a tremendous task for us there, too, which would encourage the settlement of Coloureds in their rural area there and, on the other hand, would stimulate enormously the economic development of that area. Sir, I believe that it would give South Africa an enormous economic boost if that area could be exploited. [Time expired.]

In following the hon. member for Namakwaland I will not join him in his expression of gratitude to the hon. the Minister, but I sincerely hope that at the end of the debate on this Vote I too will be able to express my gratitude to the Minister provided he considers favourably the matters which I am going to place before him today. I would, however, like to thank the hon. member for Namakwaland for his interesting address. I always thought that Namakwaland only had its daisies but now I know a lot more about the area and I hope one day to visit the hon. member’s constituency and enjoy his hospitality, and I promise him that I will reciprocate whenever he comes to my neck of the woods.

I refer to my question on Tuesday. When asked by me, as regards the allocation of an area for Coloureds at Stanger on the Natal North Coast, the hon. the Minister said that no group area for Coloureds had been proclaimed at Stanger, but that a recent proposal by the town council there that certain land alongside the north-eastern municipal boundary of Stanger be considered as a Coloured group area, was receiving attention. I can only express my gratitude in this connection, but I must ask you, Sir, please to give this your most earnest attention. My colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, said that we must deal with matters relative to the people of today. I would like to add another “today” to that and to say: Let us deal with the matters relative to the people of today, today. I should like to acquaint the Minister and this House with the problems facing a community of people in and around the borough of Stanger. Over luncheon today somebody told me—and if you have heard this before, Sir, I confess I have not—about the Coloured who said: “God made a White man and God made a Black man, but Man made me.” In the borough of Stanger there is no area set aside for the Coloured community. The distress of this community was alarming to behold during August of last year when they were led to believe they could no longer live in that area. It was on 18 February this year that a letter was received by the town clerk of Stanger from the South African Institute of Race Relations in which, inter alia, the following appeared—

Stanger and Estcourt are almost as far apart in nature as, with respect, Namaqualand and the Natal North Coast. These families have been living in this area since the turn of the century and even before that. A study of the history of Natal will reveal that there is a tremendous area of ground at Mangete which is set aside and is known as Dunn’s Reserve where the Dunn family lives. They are all Coloureds and they live there proudly today.

The Coloured community of Stanger are not people just in the village of Stanger; they are the people who consider Stanger to be the hub around which they live in a radius of some 18 to 20 miles. They work at places like Tugela, Darnall, San Souci, New Guelderland and then to the west in places like Doringkop, Glendale, Kearsney and to the south Umhlali, Chaka’s Kraal and Groutville. These people have a school in Stanger, and this is really the only amenity which they have. They are people who have a good economic background. They are not a poor community, but enjoy a high standard of living and they can afford it. However, they are enjoying this high standard of living on an almost illegal basis in that they are occupying homes that are either White-or Indian-owned. I regret to say that in many, many instances they are being exploited.

I can give the hon. the Minister a list of 61 heads of families—I have it here—who are prepared at this moment in time to build homes for themselves or to purchase ground to establish homes if only an area would be planned for them in which they may do this within the area of Stanger. I ask the hon. the Minister please to consider this urgently.

I should now like to acquaint the hon. the Minister of their affluence. Only 5% of that community earns less than R80 per month; 35% earn between R100 and R360 per month and at least 60% earn R360 and more per month. These people are employed in the area in many many trades, for instance as bricklayers, welders, bodybuilders, heavy-duty drivers, etc. There is, in fact, a multitude of trades in the sugar mills surrounding Stanger where they are employed. A meeting was held recently at which 103 families signed the attendance register and at that meeting 70 families were adamant that they were in a position to buy or to build immediately. This meeting was held in February 1974. I have said before and I repeat that I have the names of 61 people who have attested to the fact that they will and are in a position to do just this, namely to build their own homes. I do not do this in a spirit of criticism but almost in one of supplication. There is a case here for the hon. the Minister to apply his mind urgently to the provision of a group area for the Coloureds in Stanger. There can be no shortage of land and this cannot be an issue here. There is plenty of land. At the moment the Coloureds who are living in Stanger, other than those in State houses or on mill properties, are either living there illegally or on permit. There is not a single community hall, park, playground or playing-field for the Coloureds in this area. In spite of all this, this Coloured community retains its identity and remains a group of law-abiding, proud people. Crime and violence amongst the Coloured community there is non-existent. I can assure hon. members on this point. There is a school for children up to Std. 6. What happens to the children thereafter is that they have to go off to boarding schools in Durban or Eshowe. They can ill-afford to do this sort of thing. It is not an easy matter to send your child away to a boarding school today. They worship in White churches and they wonder just how much longer they will be permitted to do this. The unfortunate part is that some of them are being compelled, due to these circumstances, to become squatters and this is a most deplorable situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga spoke about circumstances with which I am quite unfamiliar, and I therefore leave him for the hon. the Minister to reply to.

If I read the signs correctly, we are approaching a situation where finality will be reached within the next few months on the guide plan for the Saldanha complex as drawn up by the hon. the Minister’s department. Let me say at once that I realize that it was a very difficult task. In drawing up this guide plan we were not confronted with a situation where we were dealing with vast Karoo flats, with wide, open spaces, so that we had full play in the arrangement of circumstances. Saldanha’s surroundings are brought up short by the ocean and it was the task of the department to draw up a guide plan here in spite of all the difficult problems. After the first provisional plan was published, we had a few basic difficulties which we put to the department. The one was the location of the future Coloured city without a beach area of its own. Then there was also the position of the Langebaan lagoon which we all considered to be the most important recreational area within this new metropolitan area which is going to arise. Then there was also the aspect of the longer stretch of coastline we requested for the marine industry in all its various facets. The Minister gave us a hearing and I want to pay tribute to the Secretary for Planning in particular for the opportunity he afforded us, making it possible for all the people in the area who wanted to come along and discuss this future plan an opportunity to come and express their ideas at a meeting in the H. F. Verwoerd Building. In my opinion it was a very magnanimous act on the part of the department, for which I should like to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister and his department. After we had deliberated among ourselves there was still a single point at issue, i.e. that the people in the marine industry were of the opinion that a longer section of the coastline should be reserved for them. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his willingness to hold talks with these people and listen to their problems on the 21st instant. I think this is the spirit in which we can create something new as far as an environment is concerned.

The real point I want to make here this afternoon, is that we should have a guide plan drawn up as quickly as possible for the area adjoining the new growth line which is now developing from Cape Town in the direction of Saldanha. To the people of this region I say that they should bring along the people so that we can analyse the entire situation, and so that planning may be carried out for the area between Cape Town and the Saldanha area. There are signs that everything in this area is being lumped together. The other point is at Saldanha where the new area is now developing. Between these two areas there is a long growth line, a line of development, as I call it. I also want to make a request to the hon. the Minister, just as in the case of Saldanha, to draw up a guide plan for the specific environment of the area between Saldanha and Cape Town as well. There are a few aspects I should like to mention to hon. members. Firstly, I want to refer to the small, picturesque beach resorts at Blouberg, Melkbos, Silver Streams, Yserfontein and Langebaan. These small beach resorts have been there all these years, and with the development of the situation these beach resorts are becoming major urban areas. Our request is that a proper survey be made of all the smaller beach resorts which are now going to develop into major urban complexes. This includes, inter alia, the vicinity of Silver Streams, which we could develop into a major beach resort for Brown people, especially since it is situated in line with Mamre. There is a second factor, i.e. the completion of the west coast road. The other evening we went to have a glass of wine with the Administrator to celebrate the start of construction on this road. We did not wait for the road to be completed! This is going to be an important road. Then there is another possibility. That is, a possible future rail link between the new area at Saldanha and the Cape metropolitan area. It is an obvious fact that a railway line will have to be constructed there at some stage or other. We want to know why we have to wait until that area has developed before we start thinking about the route the railway link should follow. It is our humble opinion that, even if the railway line is only built in ten to 15 years’ time, we should plan the route at this stage already. It would stand us in good stead in future. Then there is the development of the Mamre/Darling plan, along the line of development between the two metropolitan areas. I want to take off my hat to the Department of Planning for the fine work they are at present doing in the vicinity of Mamre through the agency of the Cape Divisional Council. There is a dual pattern in the development of White and Brown, with Mamre on the one side and the vicinity of Darling on the other. It has been decided that no more houses should be built for Brown people in the vicinity of Darling. The idea is that further houses should be built in the vicinity of Mamre, an idea with which I agree. I agree that the situation, as far as Darling is concerned, should be finalized. I want to say today that to date general experience has shown that the investor and the factory manager want to establish their factories at Darling and settle their labourers in the vicinity of Mamre, the area for which the department is planning and where new buildings are going to be erected. At present I have four industrial concerns, the names of which I do not want to mention, that want to go to the Darling area. They do not want to go to the Mamre, or to the Dassenberg areas where development is taking place at present; they want to go to the area of the twin towns where White and Brown are situated alongside each other, in other words, at Darling. As far as housing is concerned, they are afraid that the housing which is being undertaken at present will, in the first place, be directed only at the development at Dassenberg. I therefore want to make a plea here for provision to be made to the north of Mamre, too, for a housing project which will enable us to make it very clear to everyone: What we are doing here is aimed at any form of development in the vicinity of Darling.

Along this growth line between the Cape metropolitan area and the new metropolitan area which is now taking shape at Saldanha, there is another factor which should be considered, i.e. the nuclear power station around which a large buffer area will have to be reserved. That is what I gather. Along this growth line between the two metropolitan areas, there must also be a proper water supply. Recently a congress was held at which we had discussions with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs on the provision of water along this new growth line which is taking shape between the two metropolitan areas. In the light of these factors we really find ourselves faced with problems today, especially since the environment is now developing with new growth momentum. Today I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot, as in the case of Saldanha Bay, which is now being disposed of and is nearing finality, draw up a guide plan as soon as possible for this growth line between the metropolitan area of Cape Town, with all its problems of over-concentration, too many Coloureds at one point, etc., and the newly formed complex at Saldanha. Along this growth line we have what is today one of the best examples of lack of planning there was in the past. I am referring to the refinery at Milnerton. This is an outstanding example of a total lack of advance planning. This is something we should prevent in future and that is why I am pleading with the hon. the Minister to draw up a guide plan as soon as possible for this new growth line. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Moorreesburg that we appear to be reaching some finality on the whole question of Saldanha planning. When we consider the whole question of interdisciplinary planning in South Africa, we are confronted with a challenge in this particular area that will test and is testing our planning abilities to the full. This is a critical area in respect of both planning and the environment. It is a colossal challenge in that never before to my knowledge has the Government attempted such total planning on such a big scale. The problem is to plan efficiently for an explosion of industry in one of the most ecologically sensitive and most beautiful areas in our country. We are faced with the conflict between the needs of this industrial mechanism and the myriad related developments on the one hand and the need to preserve the natural assets which cannot be replaced on the other hand. The preservation of these natural assets is now being viewed by all sections of society with growing concern. The way in which we develop Saldanha is a tremendously sensitive socio-political issue. We are planning nearly from scratch, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said, an area which is expected to grow into a metropolis for South Africans of all colours. The plans we make now will have a lasting effect on the harmonious relationship between the people of various race groups who will live and work there. It will also have a lasting effect on the ability of man in that area to come to terms with the natural environment. What sort of society are we going to create there? If we make mistakes at this stage, the cost of those mistakes can be incalculable. I want to say right at the outset that the appointment of coordinating committees and various guide committees by the hon. the Minister has indicated the awareness of the Government of the importance of the decisions we have to make. However, there are several disquieting aspects of the whole approach of the Government which I must admit I find a little confusing. In recent months, the hon. member for Moorreesburg, in various discussions on this scheme, has evidently seen it as an opportunity for planning a new and exciting phase in White/Coloured relationships in which the key-note appeared to me to be closer togetherness. On the other hand, there are many others who seem to regard the greater Saldanha area as a potential dumping ground for Coloured people. There have been subterranean rumblings about the potentiality of this area as a Coloured homeland, a sort of instant solution for all the problems of Coloured people elsewhere. It is here that we stray into the whole field of ideology and herein lie very grave dangers indeed. One of the greatest causes for concern in the original plan was the location of the so-called Coloured city, plunked right down in the middle of nowhere. There was an immediate outbreak of criticism of this, some of it from the hon. member for Moorreesburg himself who, I must say, can only be congratulated on his remarkable role throughout the whole Saldanha saga. Certainly the hon. the Minister had commendably, openly, invited criticism and discussion. This location for the Coloured city was abandoned and areas for Coloured people are now being planned elsewhere. I personally am not aware of exactly where they are. I find it a little difficult to establish. I am glad to hear that these plans are reaching fruition. However, I want to say very strongly that if this area really is crucial to the Government as far as the Coloured people are concerned, they are going about planning for the future in the wrong way because no Coloured people are really involved in the various planning bodies. Coloured people are not really having a great say in what is going on. For all I know, the Government might have consulted with the executive of the Coloured Representative Council but this is not enough. The Coloured people should and must be involved in the decision-making process. Once again, we have the situation of Whites deciding for Coloureds. They are having virtually no say in the planning of their own destiny. Here, I believe, is a fundamental truth which our Government fails to grasp. People must participate when decisions are made which affect their lives and future. If you impose decisions on people without proper consultation, you make it very difficult indeed for them to accept the rightness of those decisions. The Prime Minister has come to this realization. I hardly need remind hon. members of his announcement earlier this session that Coloured people were to serve in future on statutory bodies which decide on matters that concern them. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to face up to the implications of the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement. He can capture the imagination and gain the support of thousands of Coloured people if he allows them to participate at the very highest level in the planning of the Saldanha area.

The problem in regard to the position of the Coloured cities is not limited only to their siting; there are many other problems. For example, there is the question of trading areas. In terms of Government policy are there gong to be separate shopping areas and commercial districts for Whites and Coloured people, or are we going to take the opportunity of planning one central, dynamic industrial and commercial concern, a sort of free-trade zone, open to Whites and Coloureds alike? If we divide at this stage, we know from experience that the Coloured areas are going to come off second best. Entrepreneurs and developers who go in to any area, always go first to the White area, because that is where at the moment the wealth lies. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister at this stage, is to keep his options open. I do not believe that there is one solitary member of this House who does not, in his heart, believe that our race relationships are going to be radically different 40 years from now. In 40 years’ time Saldanha could be a city of a million people I want to ask the hon. the Minister for fluid and open-ended planning. I would ask him not irrevocably to commit the area by rigid planning, according to present ideology, to a pattern which cannot be changed in future. I believe that it will have to be changed and I believe that Saldanha gives us an opportunity for the sort of planning which will allow for fluidity in a South African situation which must change.

Proceeding from that, I should just like to make mention of the aspect of the Langebaan lagoon. Early plans, of course, showed the positioning of a railway and road bridge right across the lagoon. I hope that this will not, in fact, be happening. I notice, from the later plans of Saldanha, this does not appear to be happening. However, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister please to see that this does not happen because it will simply destroy this beautiful place completely. In addition, if the harbour is to be sited on the tip of the peninsula, between the lagoon and the sea—I think this is now a nature reserve—this would also be fatal. As yet I do not think that the idea of the harbour has been dropped. I would be very interested to find out whether part of the harbour is, in fact, going to be on the tip of that peninsula. There are obviously going to be a great number of protests in regard to the ecological situation in the Saldanha area because this development is going to have an enormous effect. There is going to be pollution. What is going to be done about ore dust and the smoke? What is going to happen to the effluent from the Iscor plant? This also applies to other factories that are being planned. I believe there is going to be a manganese ore plant and a sulphuric acid plant. Are these effluents going to flow into the lagoon? What planning is there in regard to these effluents? According to the experts the lagoon is a delicate eco system which could very easily be destroyed. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the appointment of the powerful ecological committee. I can only plead that its proposals be taken very seriously indeed.

Finally there is one question I want to ask the hon. the Minister. I would like some information on the position of the Salcon dredgers. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has not answered a question on this. From the hon. the Minister of the Environment I should like to know whether these dredgers are going to be allowed to dredge in the lagoon. I should also like to know whether the ecological committee has been given the opportunity to study the position in regard to this dredging and if so, what they have reported. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the hon. member for Orange Grove have just been trying to colour in the picture of Saldanha, each according to his own view. I should like to deal with this matter more fully, but may eventually arrive at the point they have just been discussing. I should like to quote from this fine periodical from the Department of Planning, No. 6 of 1974. The man speaking here is our Secretary for Planning, Dr. Rautenbach. He states (translation!—

Dr. Rautenbach also goes on to mention in this article of his that in the year 1900, about 4% of the world’s population lived in cities, cities with a population of more than 100 000. In 1974 20% of the world’s population is living in urban complexes of more than 100 000 people. It is expected that in the year 2000, 60% of the world’s population will be living in urban complexes. If this tendency occurs in South Africa as well, 27,6 million people will be living in South Africa’s cities in the year 2000. Within a mere 26 years, therefore, provision will have to be made for an additional 23,6 million people in urban complexes in South Africa. With a view to future development we shall already have to decide, because time is short, whether we want to allow the cities such as Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, Port Elizabeth and others to double in size, and with them the Sowetos, Langas and Nyangas. Alternatively we shall have to institute a dynamic plan if development which could also decentralize the growing mass of people to areas with potential for large-scale investment, with the emphasis on each people living in its own country. If we cannot succeed in that, we must accept that the Sowetos and the Langas will double, if not triple, in size, because it is at present the Black man who is displaying the greatest tendency towards urbanization. To prevent this, there are, in my humble opinion, two ways in which provision can be made in the development plan for the future; in the first place large-scale development within the homelands where the Black man can establish himself in his own city of the future; secondly, large-scale development will have to be stimulated in areas where neighbour cities in neighbouring states can be strategically placed in order that there may be reciprocal movement over state borders which would be to the benefit of both cities, the State and its people. Mr. Chairman, the Cape constitutes almost 60% of the entire surface area of the Republic of South Africa; only four cities have developed in this enormous area over more than 300 years, of which three are at our harbours while a fourth is possibly developing at Saldanha Bay, as envisaged by the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Orange Grove. Sir, here in the Cape there is abundant space and opportunity for a major part of the future population of South Africa to establish itself, space and opportunity, too, for the Xhosa and the Tswana to establish themselves in their own cities and states. Neighbouring cities in neighbouring states can be developed in the Northern Cape at the following places: In the first place, at Vaalharts, Reivilo and Vryburg, which are situated close to the Taung District of Bophuthatswana; in the second place, the Kuruman-Hotazel-Sishen-Postmasburg-Danielskuil area, which is situated close to the Thlaro-Tlaping District of Bophuthatswana. Sir, the latter area is rich in mineral deposits in both the White area and the Tswana area.

Mr. Chairman, the mineral treasure chest of South Africa which is to be found in the Northern and the North-Western Cape not only contains the possibility of large-scale development, but is also a suitable area for the future population of South Africa to establish itself in happiness and prosperity. Sir, the key to the unlocking of this part of the Cape and its large-scale development lies, in my opinion, in the following: Firstly, the extension of a multi-purpose Saldanha-Sishen railway line from Sishen via Kuruman to Pudimoe. In the debate on the Railway Budget the hon. the Minister of Transport said that this would be a “tall order”, but I think that within the framework of future planning, in which the creation of opportunities to establish our people in the future is a prime factor, this “tall order” is an essential one. In the second place, the key to the unlocking of this part of the Cape lies in the linking-up of this railway line to the copper fields of Prieska and the rich mineral-bearing areas of Namaqualand, and in the third place, in the speedy development of Saldanha Bay as an import and export harbour. Sir, this key unlocks a new line of development from the Rand, our neighbouring states Rhodesia, Botswana and Bophuthatswana, through the mineral treasure chest of South Africa, to Saldanha Bay. Along this line of development lie great and outstanding opportunities for development that are waiting to be grasped. Much of the future population of South Africa could happily and prosperously establish itself here without doubling the size of the Johannesburgs and the Sowetos.

Mr. Chairman, then there is another minor matter which I should very much like to touch on; it is entirely unrelated to the matter I have just been dealing with. In the Northern Cape we have a few smallish Coloured communities, for example the one at Campbell, whose members are almost all Griquas; then there are some Coloureds living at Dibeng in a Bantu group area, and then there is the Gathlose-Maremane Bantu Reserve from which the Bantu are shortly to be transferred and where about 270 Coloureds are living; then, too, there are a few Coloureds who are still living in the Bantu homelands. Sir. I have before me a letter from P. Browers, a minister of the Griqua Independent Church. He writes (translation)—

Now I should like to ask today, because some of these Coloureds are rurally oriented as well, that a Coloured rural area be established for the Griqua communities in the Northern Cape. I should like to propose that the Department of Planning, investigate this idea, together with the Departments of Coloured Relations and Community Development. The ideal situation for such a Coloured rural area is the Pniel Estates near Kimberley, which are already being used for Coloureds, and then, too, 45 000 morgen west of Kimberley belonging to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, on which he keeps game. The Coloureds can be established on the land in this area, at Kimberley, which is a Coloured growth point, where there are educational facilities and employment opportunities for them. In these smaller Coloured communities, educational facilities and employment opportunities for the people cannot develop to their fullest extent. I want to mention the example of Campbell and the Griquas there. They live 20 miles from Douglas, 26 miles from Griquatown and 60 miles from Kimberley. The men work everywhere in South Africa as building contractors and in other fields, while the women have to stay there. I ask that this area belonging to Mr. Oppenheimer and Pniel be investigated as a Coloured rural area where the smaller Coloured communities of the Northern Cape, all of them being, in fact Griquas, can be established and where they will be close to employment opportunities and educational facilities and where they can develop as a community in an orderly way

Sir, I should like to address you on the subject of energy, which I believe is perhaps one of the most important aspects of present-day planning. We have in recent years and months experienced an oil crisis which many people see as being the energy crisis. In fact, it is no more than a part of the world energy crisis, but an important part of it, and in some way it may be regarded as having given an alarm to the world not merely about the shortage of oil but also in regard to the general shortage of energy, the growing demand for energy and the essential requirements that the energy needs of the world must be supplied if we are going to maintain our present standards of civilization and growth and the expectations which lie ahead of us. One of the first requirements is that there should be an expanding supply of energy at a reasonable price, an expanding supply because of the growing demand, and a reasonable price because unless energy can be supplied at an economic cost it will distort the rest of the economy to such an extent that in fact the objective will not be achieved. We have reached the point where I think the world now recognizes that a major effort must be made to develop alternative sources of energy in addition to those conventional sources which now exist. When we look forward to the energy needs of the world and of our own country in particular, we have to recognize that we require energy not only to meet the traditional needs to which we are accustomed, but to provide for a great many other needs which will arise in the years that lie ahead. Energy is not merely a matter of producing electricity for the purpose of illuminating our cities or driving our engines. It is also a means of producing food. It is a means of producing raw materials. It is a means of producing the minerals, by which we in this country will have to live, as a means of exchange. Water and fertilizers are perhaps the great connecting links between our present situation and the possibility in the future of our being able to feed our rising populations. Our country is partly a desert country. It is not a well-watered country. Water can be obtained because there are rainy lands to the north of us, but water has to be pumped and water cannot be pumped without energy. Minerals can be exploited, but minerals cannot be exploited without energy. All these things depend on the development in South Africa of a vast and expanding energy programme.

Quite recently in America the United States Government has been considering its future energy needs in the light of the oil crisis, but not entirely limited to the oil crisis. It has come to the conclusion that this is one of the major challenges of our time—the ability to produce energy in sufficient quantities at a reasonable price in order that our civilization may continue. Dr. Kissinger, addressing a special meeting of the United Nations in April this year, had this to say in endeavouring to indicate the seriousness with which the United States itself looks at the problem—

I add, in parenthesis, that in South Africa it will have to do much more than triple. Dr. Kissinger continued—

This is the kind of scale on which one has to think these days about the energy problem.

In the brief time I have I want to ask the hon. the M’nister—I hope he will tell us something when he replies—about what is happening in South Africa. We, too, have to look at this problem very seriously and very urgently. We have various energy producers in South Africa and we are fortunate in South Africa in having resources which can be brought to our aid. These energy resources, in so far as this Parliament is concerned, all under different Ministries. We have, for example, the Atomic Energy Board which is looking at nuclear energy, we have a coal industry which falls under the Minister of Mines, we have Soekor which is searching for oil, we have Sasol which is converting coal into oil, we have Escom which is generating electricity mainly from coal but also to some extent from hydro-electric sources, we have the Fuel Research Institute, we have the CSIR and so on. This is not an exhaustive list, but all these bodies in their various ways are connected with the energy effort in South Africa. To some extent they fall under the department of this hon. Minister, but others fall under other departments. One asks oneself whether, in view of the enormity of the problem, the great size and the urgency of the problem, a greater degree of co-ordination is not required at this stage.

We have recently seen a publication of the Department of Planning on our energy requirements: Energie in Suid-Afrika tot die jaar 2000 which was published this year. It contains facts which I think are up to date so far as the year 1972, i.e. before the recent oil crisis. Before that publication there was another publication of the same kind which I think appeared in 1972 and which was based on facts up to the year 1968. I do not wish to be at all critical of these publications which I think are most valuable and provide a great deal of background. If I say anything about them it is not meant in any way as a reflection on the compilers or writers of these volumes, but purely with a view to assessing whether in fact our planning in the field of energy is going fast and far enough. One has the impression in going through these publications—I do not suggest they are the only publications—that they take a rather passive view of the situation in the sense that they record the historical past. From that historical past and such information as is available, they make certain projections about the future. But they are not designed to intervene dynamically; to plan, change and to alter the whole spectrum of our energy usage. They are very largely descriptive rather than dynamic planning volumes. I believe that the time has come when we have to think very hard about these matters. I would like to see the public better informed about the implications of what is happening and what is going to happen. We are aware that there are certain co-ordinating committees. There is, for example, the Petroleum Economy Committee consisting of some very distinguished people. Then there is a subcommittee to the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council which, in fact, reviewed the evidence in this volume. This is a very useful kind of committee to have, but one would expect, in view of the very considerable problems facing South Africa and in view of the vital importance of energy to our future growth, development and prosperity in South Africa, indeed to our very security, that energy should begin to play a major part in our planning and be seen to be doing just that. One must ask onself—I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with the topic—whether in fact it is not now necessary that because of the very large variety of organizations concerned in the various fields of energy, there should not be a Department of Energy. This business of creating a new department, I know, is very often a popular cry in this House. I am not one of those who believe that one must merely create a department to solve a problem. But I believe that this is a very particular case. I believe this is a most urgent and important matter. I feel that if ever there was a case for co-ordination, for decisive action, for direct planning and for the harnessing of the skills and the knowledge which are available to us in this country and the incorporation of such other skills as may be available from outside, this is such a case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the hon. member for Von Brandis just touched on the idea that the thousands and subsequent millions for there has to be planning—where they are to live and the sources of energy they need for survival—will, after all, have to be fed as well. It is actually about this question of providing food for these millions in the future and the planning that has to be undertaken in this regard that I should like to say a few words. However, before I proceed, there is one matter I cannot allow to pass without comment. I see that the hon. member for Green Point is unfortunately not here, and that is a pity. I may as well offer Green Point on his behalf as the place for those people who are being moved from District Six, for to my knowledge there were only six Coloured families in 1906. As the place became older, it fell into the hands of people who let the houses to Brown people. When I look at many of the houses in Green Point, it seems to me as though it would be a fine substitute. However, I am only referring to this as a result of the remark that could be made in that regard.

I also want to extend my sincere congratulations to the men who put the West Coast on the map. I am now referring to the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Namaqualand and the men who helped them to bring the West Coast section of the railway line to the attention of our planners. They were very successful in doing this. But it is only when the spoils are eventually divided that the problems really start. If the railway line is now going to become the problem and there is disagreement about the course it is to follow, whether it is to be a double or a single line and to whom it is to belong, they should accept that these are but small problems which may confidently be left in the hands of the planners. Let me also extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Planning and his staff, and especially to the Secretary and his competent staff, on what they have achieved. Hon. members know that a number of years ago I rose to make a speech in this House under the Vote of the then newly established Department of Planning. The then Chairman ruled me out of order, because what I was saying did not fall under Planning. That kind of confusion has not yet been cleared up completely because the Department of Planning has a difficult task to define its duties and responsibilities precisely. Most of us, as well as the population in the interior, have by this time already gained a fairly good understanding of what the Department of Planning is doing.

The Department of Planning has performed gigantic tasks in those areas where planning has already taken place. In referring to the booklet to which the hon. member referred just now, the booklet written by the Secretary, Dr. Rautenbach, and in seeing a projection into the future of the population, one realizes that a very large population will have to be fed and that that population will be concentrated at various places which will not only be very vulnerable from a military point of view but also be situated in such a way that if major industrial concentration should be damaged, the national economy will not be prejudiced to such an extent that it will not be able to carry on functioning from the remaining industrial areas. I am referring especially to the area which was under planning recently, i.e. the Richards Bay area. This area really falls in the constituency of my hon. colleague for Eshowe, although the people of Richards Bay would not be able to subsist if they could not obtain water from my constituency, and consequently he will allow me to say a few words about the food production which could possibly take place in that area. If those rivers could be kept pure, and not polluted by the mines as is the case at present, and if one were to plan thoroughly for the production of food, there are two areas in particular in the north-eastern part of Natal to which thorough attention ought to be given at this stage. In the first place, there are the areas which are situated higher up along the Pongola and the Pivaans Rivers, where food may be produced on a large scale. We are asking not so much for the settlement of people in those areas as for planning and the provision of facilities for producing food in those areas, for processing and transporting it to the areas of the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the hon. member for Namaqualand, where millions will be settled and have to be provided with food. The second area—I am leaving out the Makatini Flats for the time being—is the area between the Rooi Rante, as it is commonly known, i.e. the red ridges, and the Lebombo range. There one finds a very extensive, fertile area which extends almost as far as Richards Bay. If that area is planned and utilized properly, it can provide more than 15 million people with food every year. If thorough planning takes place with a view to the storage of water so that evaporation may be restricted to a minimum, and with a view to the conservation of nature so that pollution will not take place in the upper reaches of the rivers which have to feed that area, another five million people can be provided with food from the area known as the “Swartfoloos” (Black ’Folozi) near Vryheid. If the Department of Planning should ever want to achieve a fine feat, something for which I will praise them until my dying day, they should place those areas on a map and tell us what they have in mind for the future. If they do this, they should do so more or less on the lines on which they went to work on Tugela Valley. No one who lives in the Tugela Basin today has any illusions about the potential of their area or about the plans being held in prospect for their area by the Department of Planning. It was placed on record in such an artistic and wonderful way by the planning division of the Natal Provincial Administration that it is even used in some universities as a basic work to be studied by students taking degree courses. Since there is a great deal of water and coal in Northern Natal and since that area is situated next to the Bantu area and Zululand is close to the sea, that area may also be planned, recorded and charted in such a way that all our people will know what our future plans are for that area.

There is the section of the line which is now under construction between Vryheid and Richards Bay or, should I say, between Broodsnyersplaas and Vryheid and from there to Richards Bay and also from Newcastle to Vryheid. If one takes that section of the line into account, it has always, in my view, been a foregone conclusion and I still believe today that the Government, and least of all the Department of Planning, could never go wrong, if they should ever think of establishing a second Sasol for the conversion of coal, if they established it somewhere along this route instead of buying land in the vicinity of Pretoria, about which there is a dispute at present.

My reason for saying this is that, if we should ever encounter set-backs in connection with exporting our coal via Richards Bay or even in connection with exporting our other minerals which we will transport to that point, we shall not be able to pile up mountains of coal at that harbour. If a second Sasol were to be erected somewhere along that section, we would be able to process and use up the coal by converting it into other forms of fuel. I believe that this would be much cheaper than having to transport that coal back to the interior and processing it there by the process employed by Sasol for converting coal into fuel. That is why I regard it as extremely important that we make these projections for the future and place them on record.

I believe that the Department of Planning and its staff envisage only the best for our country. It is unfortunate that they came under fire in connection with New castle, Richards Bay and similar places where, after planning had taken place, people, such as the hon. member for Yeoville here, came along and argued that, when land was being bought up by the State, it was to be expropriated at the value it had before it became known that that area was going to be developed. The hon. member for Yeoville has reminded me of a schoolboy who argues that one should not buy a stand in a town, for if one should wish to sell it at a later date and the value of the stand has increased, one would have to sell it at the same price at which one bought it ten or 15 years previously. This is the kind of puerile argument which came from the hon. member. I do not think the Department of Planning will make a mistake if they regard the spiteful blows frequently dealt out in their direction in regard to major Government projects which are being erected in this light, i.e. that they come from people who are in fact not fully informed and whose souls, in any event, are not so patriotic that South Africa and its prosperity mean more to them than other countries and the jingle of money do. [Time expired.]

That is a reprehensible statement.

I am sorry the hon. member for Vryheid started dragging politics into this debate. This was not necessary and therefore I do not want to speak about it.

†I would like to speak about the Coloureds in southern Natal. I would like to bring the hon. the Minister’s attention to the plight of the Coloureds there. We have heard a great deal today about the Coloureds in the Western Cape and in Namaqualand and I think people tend to forget that we have a fairly large Coloured community in Natal as well. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of them and of their plight. The Coloureds in Natal are of course different to the Coloureds in the Cape. There are a great many Griquas amongst them as well as people of Zulu origin. They are spread from East Griqualand in the south to the midlands in the north. They constitute only a small proportion of the population there but they nevertheless play a very significant part in the commercial and the industrial life of that part of Natal.

I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to help them if possible in their plight. There are two small group areas in Durban and another one has now been proclaimed south of Port Shepstone. Between Port Shepstone and Durban there are no areas where the Coloured people can live. Those people who are living in East Griqualand, round about Matatiele, Cedarville and Kokstad, and also those Coloureds in the Harding area and still many more in the Umzimkulu area and as far as Ixopo, have in the past all relied on work in these country villages. There is no longer any work. There is no more building development. Most of these people are skilled in building trades. Consequently, they now start coming down to the coastal strip where there is a great deal of building work. These people are easily finding work there, and of course, are earning much more than they can earn inland. The only problem is that these people have nowhere to live. If a man comes down to the coastal area and gets a job either in the Durban complex or down at Scottburgh, or even as far south as Margate, he immediately sends for his family and they join him. Because they do not find accommodation, they move into some garage or backroom in an Indian area, where they pay exorbitant rentals and live in the most shocking, unhygienic, unsanitary and overcrowded conditions. There is no hope for them until such time as they will be able to build or occupy premises which are in a Coloured group area.

I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to proclaim a Coloured group area between Durban and Port Shepstone. It is very necessary. People who are working in Durban now have to journey down to the Indian area at Umzinto, which is about 96 to 100 km south of Durban. Those who are working between Scottburgh and Durban, and there are many more working in Durban itself, are travelling down as far as Port Shepstone over weekends to live with their families. This is of course a great hardship to them and it breaks up their family life. I feel that these people deserve some consideration.

I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that a Coloured group area has been established at Marburg. I know it took Mr. Mitchell many years to have this group area established. It is only a very small one, of roughly 200 odd acres, but it is a start, and we hope that within two or three years there will be some development in the area and that these people will be able to occupy houses or even buy property and build their own houses.

There is also a Coloured community round about Ixopo, situated in the inland area. These people also have nowhere to live. Most of them are squatting on White farms. Many of them are squatting in the Indian areas. They are gainfully employed in Ixopo. I would also like to ask that some consideration be given to helping them.

Apart from these industrial labour types amongst the Coloured people, there is also the farming community. There is a considerable farming community in Southern Natal amongst the Coloured people. There are Coloured farmers in the East Griqualand area, in the Umzimkulu area and at High Flats in the Ixopo area. Some of them are very prosperous and are doing well. Some of them have been on the land for generations. Some of them are descendants of the Dunns, the Fynnes and other well-known Coloured families in Natal. These people are now finding that their farms are being expropriated, and they have nowhere else to go. As in the case of White people, when a Coloured’s farm is expropriated for consolidation purposes, he is paid out in cash. But, unlike Whites he cannot buy another farm. There is no place where he can go. So he takes the money which he got for his farm and moves into an urban area, where he may buy a house, if it is possible. Otherwise, he probably invests the money and then tries to find a job.

However, having no skills other than farming, he does not find work readily, and before he knows where he is, he has spent the little capital he had. He then becomes an ordinary poor Coloured. His children, who are country born and bred, are now suddenly brought into an urban area where there is vice and violence and they fall prey to such temptations as well. So, besides losing good farming stock we are also causing the degradation of family life as far as the Coloured people are concerned. I therefore feel that there is an urgent need in Natal for a farming area where Coloured people who have been dispossessed can again buy farms. It should preferably be an area similar to the area from which they have been uprooted and preferably an area where there are other Coloured farmers. There is such an area, I might add. There may be more than one, but I know of one which I think would be ideally suited and that is about 120 km south of Durban on the coast at Ifafa.

There are already Coloured farmers there and this would be an ideal place for them to move into and buy Coloured farms which they could farm under the conditions laid down by the provincial administration or otherwise. There is also an opportunity to establish a Coloured township in this particular area. This would give the Coloureds beach facilities, which they do not have anywhere in Natal. There is no area where the Coloureds can have a beach of their own. At the moment they are sharing with the Indians and the Whites. I think this is the kind of thing we should aim for and I respectfully ask the hon. the Minister to give it his consideration.

I now want to come to another subject. I see from the report of the C.S.I.R. fox 1973 that there is research being done on the Umgeni River mouth, to try to work out a self-scouring basin in the river mouth. I think this is a very important research project. I do not know who is financing it, whether it is completely Government financed. I could not quite get that from the report. It is, however, a very worth while project nevertheless. On the south coast we have an engineer in my constituency who has been interested in this kind of project for years and who has been trying to interest the C.S.I.R. in his ideas. I know he has had a lot of encouragement, but nothing concrete has yet been done. He has come up with theories to make a river mouth self-scouring. Water from the tides could be harnessed along a reef which could run parallel to the shore and this water could be guided in such a way that it would flow into the river mouth and scour it continuously. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast dealt with certain aspects of problems in his constituency. I do not intend saying anything in that regard. I just want to comment that the hon. member maintained a very level tone in his speech. It is somewhat lacking in intensity and excitement, which we were used to having from the hon. member’s predecessor.

By way of introduction I should very much like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the plea made here by the hon. member for Kuruman in the debate on transport matters and again in this debate today. I, too, made a similar plea in that debate. The railway line cannot stop at Pudimoe, but must go on to Schweizer-Reneke and Makwassie. I am sure the hon. member for Klerksdorp will indicate later on how important Klerksdorp is in this process.

Today I should like to exchange a few ideas on a subject which, to my mind, should receive the attention of the Department of Planning now. Since the Department of Planning came into being, we have had extensive planning machinery on the level of the Central Government, that of the provincial authorities and on the level of the local authorities. Within the framework of that machinery we appointed the necessary planners. The work was done. We progressed to such an extent that we drew up a national physical development plan for South Africa. On the other hand I feel that the time is ripe now, with this national physical development plan we have and the regions which have now been demarcated, for the department to give very careful attention now to the position of the regional development associations.

Mr. Chairman, it will not avail us to have the best machinery that has been planned at Central Government or local government level if we cannot discuss matters with the people for whom we are planning. I want to say at once that I do not mean by that that the Department of Planning does not discuss matters with these people, but the existing machinery did not work, and I want to say that at this stage it does not work properly either. We had a reasonable measure of overlapping in the days before we had this physical development plan. The boundaries of regional development associations overlapped; no regional spirit prevailed which could act as a real stimulus to the development in the area concerned.

Sir, I think this is a good time for the Department of Planning to have a look at the position of regional development associations and for us to give more status as well as more content to the activities of these regional development associations, as the embodiment of the people for whom planning is being undertaken. Sir, it is essential that we do so, for we must be able to discuss matters with the people for whom we are planning. Sir, you will immediately ask me what we have in mind. In the first place, I just want to say that I am grateful to the hon. the Minister, who accepted an invitation to the Western Transvaal to attend a symposium on 31 October in Potchefstroom, where we are in fact going to discuss the role of regional development associations. But that is just by the way, Sir.

Our problem with regional development associations today is that they are loosely structured, voluntary corps of people who come together in such associations as a result of their common interests. Many of these people do not really possess the knowhow which is required when one speaks about regional or town planning. The interest taken by many of these people in the regional planning association is probably of a more local nature. Perhaps the regional planning association is seen by them as a platform on which to agitate for the establishment of an industry or a factory at some place or other in that region.

Sir, I feel that, in the first place, a regional planning association should consist of people who in fact look at the development in their region on a voluntary basis, but this cannot be done on a voluntary basis only. We shall have to think of a system such as the one we found in our agricultural industry with our soil conservation committees, where the Minister also has the power to disignate certain people on the ground of their knowledge, their interests and the fact that those people in that region can do the necessary to ensure liaison between the Department of Planning and that region. Sir, I am not trying to say that such a regional development association should consist entirely of designated people. I think we should accommodate these designated people within a voluntary organization, but we should retain the voluntary nature of the organization, otherwise we will not obtain the cooperation of the community we are planning for.

Sir, I also feel that there is another major shortcoming in the way these regional development associations have been functioning to date. I want to say at once, Sir, that I am not a protagonist of “Women’s Lib”, but I feel that women and women’s organizations should be involved to a far greater extent when we speak about planning. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of the role of the woman when planning takes place. The intuition of a woman, a woman’s view of how planning should take place and her feeling for the aesthetic and particularly on the sociological level of planning, are absolutely essential to us. Sir, I am not important enough to make an appeal to the women’s organizations in South Africa today to support this matter, but I could perhaps make an appeal to the hon. the Minister.

I am aware of the fact that the Minister will in any event have far more influence with women than I shall have, and that is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to make an appeal of this kind. It is essential that we should consider the people for whom we are planning and the woman’s role in this planning, not only on the part of the town fathers, the regional authorities, the provincial administration or the Central Government, but also in the specific sphere in which the women’s organizations function. I have said we should give more content to the work of regional development associations.

Now, I am aware of the fact that the Minister and even his department do not have much time for my idea, i.e. that we should have planners at regional development associations as well, people who can be of assistance to the regional development associations in the technical sphere. Perhaps I did not express myself quite clearly in the past about what the nature of the work of such a planner with a regional development association should be. It is by no means my idea that when one adds a planner to such a regional development association, that planner should be a planner within the planning.

The planner should merely be able to act in an advisory capacity in respect of the regional development association so that the leaven may spread from the Department of planning, from this guide plan where we have only a certain area, to the region, and the people and members of these regional development associations, together with those planners, should in fact be the people who will do the necessary educational work to make the environment and the society amenable to the development which is being planned there. If we do this, we shall have the necessary co-ordination. Today, with respect, we are too often faced with situations in respect of which the Department of Planning or any of the other planning organizations have done their planning very thoroughly, but then we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where the entire community revolts against what has been planned. The reason for this is very simply that no matter how hard the Department of Planning tries to explain what they have in mind, be it through its machinery or the province or the town fathers, this does not have the same meaning as it does when those people themselves educate their own people. [Time expired.]

I hope the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument. I want to try to shift the debate a little into the direction of environment rather than of specific planning. But I do want to support the hon. member who has just sat down in his emphasis on the need for the involvement of women, the wives, in the planning, whether it be family planning or any other kind of planning, because I feel that they have a very important role to play.

I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his staff on the report which they have issued for 1972-73. As I mentioned, I want to emphasize, more especially today, the role of environment in this planning. Reading through the paragraphs which deal with environment specifically, there are two items which stand out and for which I would like to express my own appreciation. The first has to do with the setting up of specific working groups covering a number of very important areas. I refer especially to the working groups on air pollution, noise disturbance, water pollution, nature conservation, environmental research and littering. These are all very positive steps and I hope very much that we will be getting further information as the reports come from these various working groups. The other amphasis which I find in this report which I welcome very much is the recognition of and the stress on the educational task which this department has. This is a very ambitious programme involving not only literature, but also radio. Once again I want to say we welcome this movement and we wish the hon. the Minister and those involved with him all the success that this deserves.

The task of preserving and protecting the environment in South Africa or in any other part of the world is an enormous one and more and more attention is being paid to this responsibility and this endeavour. I want to suggest that the present structure of the department simply does not allow the hon. the Minister, with the resources at his disposal, to do the work which is so vital and important both for ourselves and those who come after us. Under the present arrangement he simply cannot do the work as effectively as I am quite sure he desires to do it. Let us think, for example, of several instances in recent days where pollution has been in the news. We heard in a debate earlier today in the House of the oil pollution once again on the shores of the Natal coast and very close to the city of Durban itself. Despite all the precautions that are being taken and all the wise planning that goes into this protection, this seems nevertheless to be recurring with alarming frequency. I am trying to focus only on one area in our land, and I refer therefore to another very disturbing feature, the silting up of the rivers in Natal. There are many reasons for this, but I understand that one of the major reasons is the planting of sugar cane too close on the river banks and the lack of control thereof.

If one examines the whole question of air pollution in the major cities of our land, it is clear that we are simply not bringing this down to what is regarded as an acceptable level. The Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, 1965, provides for the declaring in our cities of what is known as smokeless zones and for the prosecution of those responsible for the emission of dark smoke. Whilst the Act is good and whilst the fact that prosecution is allowed for is right and proper, the Act is simply not being implemented as effectively as one would desire it to be done. I understand that the implementation of this Act is the responsibility of the local officials, but there are very, very few such officials. I think of one major city where a year or so ago there were only two inspectors trying to deal with the emission of smoke from industry as well as from motor vehicles. If the present arrangement is not satisfactory and actually does not promote adequately the kind of steps that need to be taken for the protection and preservation of the environment, what then am I suggesting might be looked at by the hon. the Minister?

In the first place, the control of the environment falls under several departments. For example, the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, No. 45 of 1965, is administered by the Minister of Health, the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act, No. 67 of 1971, is controlled by the Minister of Transport, and soil erosion, the protection of our river banks and almost all aspects of rural conservation, are administered by the Department of Agriculture. In many instances the implementation of conservation measures is divided between central, provincial and local government and this inevitably leads to a passing of the buck and a failure to take the necessary action no matter how good the co-ordination might be. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to consolidate the legislation and the machinery for the implementation thereof within a single authority. In the annual report which I referred to earlier, and specifically in the introduction thereto, we are reminded that it was only in August 1972 that the hon. the Prime Minister made the following statement—

He then talked about the root problems of the environment. I agree wholeheartedly with this move, but I wonder whether we have gone about it in the right way and whether we have gone as fast as we might have done. The fact is that only nine paragraphs in this entire report deal specifically with the whole question and the problem of the protection and the preservation of the environment. This debate itself today is a further indication that so great are our needs in the planning for the future development of our country, that inevitably the whole question of environment must take a back seat. Obviously planning and environment belong together, but because the need for the protection of our environment is so great, I would like to suggest—I know this is sometimes fashionable and I do not mean to be fashionable—to the hon. the Minister that he consider the appointment of a broadly based commission of inquiry with the following terms of reference—

1. 1. To review all laws for the protection and preservation of the environment;
2. 2. To research fully the activities of overseas Government agencies in the conservation of the environment; and
3. 3. To investigate the desirability of consolidating all environmental action into a single and separate Department of the Environment.

What I am proposing therefore, is not that the hon. the Minister should simply listen to this kind of brief 10-minute plea, but rather that an inquiry should take place as to the possibility of separating out, on the one hand the Department of Planning which is vital and, on the other hand, the Department of the Environment so that neither the one nor the other should be neglected. Both are crucial for the future of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and his department, me if I do not react to his speech. He put his case and he will be furnished with a reply. I should like to associate myself with the congratulations, thanks and appreciation conveyed by previous speakers, such as the hon. member for Vryheid, to the hon. the Minister and his department I should like to state here that one always gets sincere and friendly co-operation from him and from the department.

I just want to express a few thoughts here concerning future planning in the Klerksdorp-Stilfontein region, an area which is known for its gold-mining industry in particular. Then, too, I should like to give an indication of the dependence of that area on the gold-mining industry, and also emphasize certain aspects in regard to future planning. When I talk about the gold-mining industry, I do not want to make out in any way that I am of the opinion that one should think of our minerals in South Africa as a diminishing asset. I think the opposite is true if one looks at the available data and the growth in recent times. A specific area could be affected, particularly by dependence on a specific mining industry, if the scope of mining activities there were to diminish, particularly if such an area were far away from a major urban complex. I want to give a brief indication of the dependence of the Klerksdorp area by quoting a few figures.

In 1973 this region produced 18,7% of South Africa’s gold production, to the value of R33 million.

In 1973 there was an average of 8 244 Whites employed by mines in this area. Together with their families they add up to more than 25 000 people directly dependent on the mines.

In 1973 there were, on the average, more than 93 000 workers in the area who were attached to the gold-mining industry. Purchases of supplies in this specific area by gold-mining companies run to many millions of rand annually, particularly in regard to agricultural products. I have in mind, for example, the enormous amount of food bought by the mines for their workers. In addition, vehicles, spareparts, building material, etc., are bought by the mines.

The present commercial and industrial activities in this area are to a large extent directed towards consumption by the mining industry. If we bear in mind that bout 90% of all supplies used by the mining industry are manufactured or produced in the Republic, we are given some indication of the percentage of the participation of the mines in the commercial and industrial activities in Klerksdorp.

A survey made in 1968-’69—I do not believe we have reason to think that the pattern has changed since then—indicates that only about 3% of the income of the employees in this industry is spent outside the Klerksdorp area.

Apart from this the State, too, derives extensive income from the area by way of taxation and rent. Mining activities have been carried on for many years in this area, and it would be reasonable to accept that this will be the case for many years yet—in fact, for the greater part of the rest of this century.

The scope of these activities will necessarily diminish in future years. When that time comes, reduced employment or employment opportunities in this area could lead to a resultant drop in the importance of this area as a market for industrial and agricultural products. Apart from this, it will have an influence on the other sectors of the economy as well. It could lead to enormous losses in regard to the capital invested in the construction of houses, buildings, etc. planning being something that is done over the long term, it is my opinion that precautionary measures should be taken in the form of the establishment of secondary industries in this area. I do not want to suggest specific industries because I realize that the incentives for the establishment of industries are limited. However, the area is, in fact, reasonably central as far as the domestic market is concerned and the available labour in the area could possibly be absorbed gradually into industries established there. Possibly water could be obtained from the enormous amount of water to be found underground in the mines at the moment. It is difficult to establish labour-intensive enterprises in the area, particularly owing to the policy of decentralization. Consequently, efforts must be made to attract capital-intensive industries and enterprises.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to assist this area in certain respects as far as planning for the future is concerned. I have in mind, for example, relief similar to that being offered in the border areas, inter alia, tax relief for industrialists for a certain number of years after establishment, relief in respect of railway tariffs and road transport services, assistance in the construction of factories, investments in the area on certain terms and even planning for the establishment of an industrial centre. As the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke has already said, the local bodies are still enthusiastic. The local city councils, the sakekamers, the chambers of commerce and the regional development associations are still enthusiastic in their efforts to attract industrialists. They, too, are doing their very best but they definitely need support and I am convinced that they will appreciate support.

I realize that if a programme of development were to be drawn up for this area, the broader national development programme could not be lost sight of. But I do want to ask that the hon. the Minister and his department make a point of considering this area. I want to ask that urgent consideration be given to compiling a master plan for this area as soon as possible with a view to complementing the mining industry and in time, replacing them by other industries. This area already has the necessary infrastructure and in consequence the State need incur no major capital investment for the creation of an infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the plea of the hon. member for Klerksdorp and I want to tell him that we shall solve all the problems he has when the U.P. comes into power.

† I looked with great interest at the report of the Department of Planning and I was especially interested to see on page 25 that the department acknowledges that it does consult with the provincial administrations when it comes to township development. On 21 August 1974 the hon. the Minister had the following to say in the Senate (Senate Debates, col. 522)—

The hon. the Minister went on to say that his department was now undertaking the task of overall co-ordinated planning. In fairness to the hon. the Minister, I want to say that that remark may apply to other provinces and to local authorities, but he must be joking if he thinks it applies to the Executive Committee of the Cape Province. I want to tell him that the way they have handled planning, especially of coastal townships in the Cape Province, is absolutely shocking and is an absolute disgrace. I think the hon. the Minister should chastise them and should take them to task. I am therefore most disappointed in him that he saw fit to congratulate them on their poor efforts in the past. In reply to a written question on the Order Paper the hon. the Minister said that the application for Wavecrest, at Jeffreys Bay, was submitted to the Department of Planning. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is with a sense of shock that I note that the hon. the Minister allowed the application to go through, because this application throws overboard all the existing principles, procedures and precedents as applied by the Department of Planning and the Townships Board in the past. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that Mr. Nico Malan, a former Administrator of the Cape Province, who was very anxious about the question of overall planning, more especially in relation to coastal developments, had the following to say in 1969—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with that statement made by Mr. Malan. If he tells me that he does agree with that statement, I want to point out to him what happened after Dr. Nico Malan’s retirement as Administrator of the Cape Province. After his retirement the Executive Committee of the Cape Province went absolutely beserk as far as coastal township development is concerned. They threw overboard the established principles of staged township development and started granting township applications as though they were going out of fashion. Staged development means that you grant an application for the development of 200, 300 or 400 plots. Then you wait until 40% of those plots have been built upon and only after the buildings are up, do you grant the next stage of the development. There are very good reasons for such a policy, for instance it prevents chaotic conditions from being created throughout the coastal townships of the Republic of South Africa. But if we look at what happened in the Cape Province, we find that four applications were granted for over 1 000 plots to be sold at one time, in conflict with township policy as approved by the Department of Planning. I should like to mention the areas concerned. In the case of Dana Bay there were 2 000 plots, in the case of Betty’s Bay 1 617, in the case of Pringle Bay 1 094 and in the case of Wavecrest, 3 700. It seems a very strange coincidence, but from what I could gather, in all four applications, or at least in three of them, the same people were involved. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister why, since his department received all those applications, they did not put a stop to it. Sir, they are actually a party to the granting of those applications because all those applications are sent to the hon. the Minister’s department first before they are finally decided upon. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, as he is well aware, an inquiry was ordered into Wavecrest. The committee was changed afterwards into a departmental committee of inquiry. The committee consisted of M.P.C.s. I do not know whether it has ever happened in the history of South Africa that there has been a departmental committee consisting of M.P.C.s. We had to sit behind closed doors. Sir, it was not an inquiry; it was a farce. We did not have the powers of a committee of inquiry. We could not cross-examine witnesses under oath. We could not compel witnesses to answer questions, and we ourselves had no privilege whatsoever. In my view, Sir, it was merely a cover-up inquiry. If we had been appointed in terms of the Commissions Ordinance, there would have been no problem. Then we could have gone into the matter in depth. We were powerless, for example, to examine the financial statements or the books of the applicant company. Then, in the end, to add insult to injury, we produced a minority report and his hon. the Administrator refused to publish the report. He published the last four pages, and the whole report, together with annexures, ran to over 200 pages.

Now, Sir, I have only ten minutes in this debate to deal with this complicated matter. I shall therefore mention only a few features. I want to say that the failure to publish this minority report is a most disgraceful state of affairs. I think the Minister has a duty to demand this report. After seeing the report, I think the Minister will find that he will have a duty to see that a formal commission of inquiry is appointed to go into this matter. The report shows that the executive committee knew that the granting of 3 700 plots immediately for sale without staged development, was against the policy of the Department of Planning and against the policy of the Townships Board. The townships officials said that to allow the sale of plots which may not be used for the next 100 years was a departure from existing township principles. The report reflects that officials advised that if the application was granted it would lead to the establishment of ghost towns. Is that what the hon. the Minister wants in the Cape Province? The officials also advised that if the application was granted it would lead to the collapse of the townships policy in the Cape.

Sir, the officials went further. They also said that the granting of that application was against the interests of the economy. They also pointed out that the services would go to rack and ruin as they would not be used for very many years ahead. The executive committee were also advised that Jeffreys Bay had more than enough plots as only 19% of the plots had been developed, and after the 3 700 plots were granted, only 7% of the whole of Jeffreys Bay was developed. Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister can see that there was no reason whatever for that application to be granted in the form in which it was granted. At the very best, it could have been granted as the Townships Board recommended, viz. a few hundred plots at a time. The executive committee were also told that there were 1 159 plots granted in the last two or three years in Jeffreys Bay and that there was enough ground for another 1 400 plots to be granted, but that that could not yet be considered because there had not been enough building activity in that area. The officials also pointed out that the grant would be a departure from existing policy. The Executive Committee were also told that the grant would not stop scattered development and would lead to fragmentation of our coastline. I can see the hon. the Minister smiling about it. Apparently, it does not matter to him whether the coastline of the Cape Province is spoilt or not. He should be ashamed of himself. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that we were told that this application was granted because of a donation of R800 000 by the applicant company. I want to tell hon. members that this is scandalous nonsense. That amount of R800 000 was never a donation at all. In fact, we found that instead of paying the normal 7½% incorporation endowment the applicant company was permitted to pay R800 000. When we examined the position we found that had they paid the 7½% incorporation endowment and had they not received all the other benefits, it would have been worth far more than the R800 000. We were misled in the Cape Provincial Council on this matter. Surely the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment cannot be in favour of creating artificial growthpoints? This is an artificial growthpoint. Taking into account the cost of the plots and the interest involved as well as the building operations, the amount of money involved will be something in the neighbourhood of R128 million. We heard this morning of major companies being placed under judicial management in this country. Yet the hon. the Minister allows this sort of thing to take place. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer has simply transferred the bitterness he displayed in the provincial council to this House. It seems to me he wants to get up to the same things here as he did in the provincial council. I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him on that score in good time.

As far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned, it seems to me as if he has once again not done his homework. I say this with reference to the fact that at the end of his speech he pleaded for the co-ordination of conservation on an international level. I should like to point out to the hon. member that a report of the department was surely also sent to him, and on page 2 of the report it is stated that as far back as 1972 such a congress was held at Stockholm at which the secretary of this department represented the Republic. It was a conference about environmental conservation at which 1 200 representatives of 110 countries were present. I can therefore assure the hon. member that the Department of Planning and the Environment are already co-ordinating forces at the international level for the protection of the environment. I should also very much like to come back to what the hon. member for Green Point said here this afternoon in regard to District Six. I should very much like to make an appeal to this hon. member, in fact to everyone, including bodies and persons who often tend to become emotional about this matter, to approach it with great responsibility and with extreme circumspection for the sake of the progress of the Brown people, particularly those in the Peninsula.

The Church is not emotional.

I am sure the hon. member does not expect of me always to agree with the Church. If that hon. member agrees with the Church, then I should have to differ with the Church as well that often deals with this matter in an emotional way. What were the conditions in this neighbourhood like before it was cleared? This neighbourhood was known as the biggest slum in the entire Republic. I want the hon. member for Green Point to give attention to the fact that from before the resettlement of about 4 000 families up to the present, this neighbourhood …

Nobody is against redevelopment.

The hon. member has already had his turn to speak. I want to point out that only a quarter of District Six belonged to Coloureds. Three-quarters of the neighbourhood belonged to Whites who exploited the Coloureds. This was a neighbourhood where 20 people often lived under one roof, an area where there was no space for church facilities, where there was no space for recreational facilities and where schools or educational facilities were lacking. According to those hon. members, that neighbourhood should have been kept for the Coloureds.

Did you consult the Coloureds?

The State created new facilities for these people of which we have already had proof in the form of a number of new church buildings, a university, recreational facilities and other amusements. These people have been placed on the path of progress. These people are following the same pattern of development which the White people has to follow in old Cape Town. When the Whites in old Cape Town started to become cramped, they spread out to the northern suburbs, and today one finds fine suburbs there. Sir, if we were only to give the Government a chance, I am convinced that it would place the 4 000 Brown families who are still accommodated in District Six today, on the same path of development.

Mr. Chairman, I now come to a matter affecting my constituency. The Republic comprises 1,25 million square miles, and 70% of this surface area is mountainous and semi-desert. This means that land in the Republic has become extremely scarce. It is calculated that by the year 2000, 90% of the Whites and 75% of the Black people will have been urbanized. Sir, when I consider the fact that the Republic’s usable land has become extremely scarce, and when I consider the beauty of our scenery and the diversity of our flora and fauna, and when, at the same time, I think of the inhabitants of this country and in particular the inhabitants of the Port Elizabeth region. In this respect I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said about the district councils, of which we have 38, including the district council of Port Elizabeth. We find that in Port Elizabeth, and more specifically in the northern part of Port Elizabeth, vast industrial development has taken place. Hand in had with this there have been the expanding suburbs being built there and also beach areas where recreational facilities are being created for people. But now we find that in that area, which is at present a White residential area, adjacent recreational facilities are being provided for Black, Brown, Indian and White. Sir, we know that this is a temporary arrangement during the transitional stage, but there is another factor too which I want to mention here, and that is that agriculture is practised in that region. We find that virtually thousands of squatters, Black and Brown, find accommodation on the farms there. Most of these people work in the cities. In other words, this municipal area in which industries are situated, has accommodation for its employees on the farms of Whites. Sir, perhaps I shall be told immediately that it is the duty of those White farm owners to remove the squatters from their farms, but with the manpower shortage we are experiencing in our police force, the police find it extremely difficult to put a stop to this squatting on White property. Sir, since I am aware of a guide plan that is being drawn up for this region and which is almost finalized, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for this guide plan to be expedited because it will be to the great benefit of those specific areas. It will solve many problems for White, Black and Brown in that area. I feel that this guide plan has become an urgent necessity for the expansion of that area for industries as well as inhabitants and that many problems could be ironed out by means of a guide plan of this nature.

The hon. member for Somerset East started off his speech by suggesting that the statement which the hon. member for Green Point had made in regard to District Six was wrong because it was emotional. Sir, this unfortunately is the problem with hon. members opposite. Every single time that any member on this side of the House deals with any matter relating to the Black people or the Coloured people or the Indian people of this country, we are accused of being emotional, of bringing race matters into the emotional area and of being irresponsible. I want to tell the hon. member for Somerset East that he can say as much as he likes that we are being emotional, or whipping up emotions when we talk about race matters, but we will go on doing it in order to show where this all started, namely in the hearts of the people who belong to the party which he supports, because it is their policy which has brought about this situation that whenever anybody talks about race matters it now appears to be a matter which brings forth emotion. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Planning must know surely that there are certain areas in South Africa which need special attention. I think that as he comes from Queenstown, he being the hon. member for Queenstown, he will probably know the area about which I am going to speak this afternoon, and know about it very well. I notice that last year in April 1973 he invited the hon. member for East London City to talk about East London and its environs, so I make no excuses because I am now going to talk about East London and its environs. I want to bring forcibly to the Minister’s mind, and to remind him of what is going on in the East London, Berlin and King William’s Town areas. Now, Sir, when I made my maiden speech I mentioned the fact that there were dramatic developments going on in the East London area, in the Berlin complex, and that there was a little area these sandwiched in between two Bantu homelands. I do not blame the hon. the Minister for not listening to a maiden speech. I suppose that is probably what does happen in this House, that not many take note of what is said in a maiden speech. But I am hoping that what I am going to say today will bring forth an answer from him in respect of certain queries I want to put to him.

When I addressed this House, I stressed the need for the development of the region in view of the fact that there was a growing unemployment problem developing on the borders of the Ciskei, an area which borders on to this particular growth point of East London-Berlin. I also suggested that investigations should be carried out in regard to the concept of a free trade zone which could be established at East Londen in order to alleviate the possible unemployment and also to stimulate the siting of industries which could take place in this free trade zone. I understand that an investigation is taking place into the concept of a free trade zone and I should like to have the confirmation of the hon. the Minister that this in fact is going to take place, namely that a report will be produced and that it will be produced at the end of this year, because time is running out, as time is running out in so many spheres of political activity in the lives of South Africans today. I should like to stress that the development of this area is now becoming a socio-economic problem, whereas I believe that in the first instance the whole area was looked at as far as the decentralization point of view is concerned solely from an economic point of view. Now, with the movement of labour which is coming back into that area a serious socio-economic problem is arising. It is interesting to note that when the Tomlinson Commission first presented its report, Dr. Verwoerd declined to accept the recommendation that in the Bantu homelands White industrial capital should be invested in order to stimulate the growth of industries in the homelands. Dr. Verwoerd said “No”, and added that for ideological reasons the Government would develop border industries. Then of course the Government found that such a policy was not working and for that reason they introduced a system whereby industries could be developed in the homelands on an agency basis. However, it is interesting to note that the hon. the Prime Minister recently attempted to alleviate the situation by suggesting that White entrepreneurs could obtain more permanency if they negotiated with Black homeland leaders. Another aspect which has arisen is that in the Ciskei itself it is very difficult to establish any form of real industrialization and so, what we find is that right on the borders of the Ciskei there is a mass of employable labour building up while the industrialization apparently is going to take place outside the homeland itself, that is in the White area of East London-Berlin-King William’s Town. I believe that we should encourage industrial development in the Black homelands, but I believe too that this should be done only, of course, within reason and I shall come back to that a little later in my speech.

Reverting to the East London-Berlin area itself, I want to remind the hon. the Minister that when I spoke for the first time in this House, I also made a second suggestion, viz. that there should be a special body set up to deal with this area particularly in regard to its development. I drew the attention of this House to the success that the XDC had experienced in selling the Transkei to industrial entrepreneurs. I believe that the reason for this success is clearly that the XDC employs professional know-bow and experitise, and that it’s personnel can devote their full time and attention to the selling of industrial areas and industrial possibilities in the homelands. I believe that the main factor presently stultifying the development of the East London-Berlin-King William’s Town industrial area is that there is no specific body which is completely entrusted, on a full-time basis, with finance and expertise available, in selling that area to industrialists. The only ones who are attempting to do anything about it are the local newspaper, which only has a restricted circulation, the department of the hon. the Minister, which produced this very fine book, called Growth Points, 1974—it has a few failures, of course—a special committee formed by interested bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries, and the municipality itself. However, not one of these bodies can really give its full time and attention to the selling of this particular area.

I might say that I am a little disappointed in this book. It is a fine publication, but I am disappointed because the information it contains is not completely updated. The book is dated 1974, but information in regard to population figures, which I believe are very important to industrialists, is only updated to 1970. The book gives some interesting information. It shows that during the period 1970 to 1973 there were only four new industries which established themselves in the Berlin area to absorb the vast labour supply which is manifesting itself in Mdantsane, where there are over 22 000 plots in the township itself. If one works out the number of people who live in one plot one can easily see what the population of Mdantsane is at the moment.

I believe too that further funds should be devoted towards the development of this area. If the hon. the Minister can consider creating a corporation of some sort with the specific purpose of developing this area and allocating it funds, I am quite sure that he will find that industrialists, being properly informed of what is going on there, will start evincing an interest in this area. A very desperate situation is emerging there. If the hon. the Minister cannot accede to my request to form a corporation, I should like to suggest that he should form a special section in his department to deal with this particular area on a full-time basis and that he should request the Industrial Development Corporation, which received a bonanza of R17 million this year from the Minister of Finance, to devote some of those funds towards specifically the development of the East London-Berlin industrial area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, seeing that the hon. member for East London City has said that this is more or less the second time he has spoken on this subject, I think he will realize, since this is my maiden speech in this House this year, that I approach my task with some trepidation. Thus far I have ranged against me 17 members who have covered a wide range of subjects, some complimentary and some not so complimentary. He may understand how I feel. However, I shall do my best.

*While I was listening, it struck me that we were referring here today to South Africa, each of us to an area of South Africa, that area which we know well whose interests we have at heart. Some are areas where there is excellent development and which now have development problems. On the other hand reference was also made to other areas where there is a lack of development and where we should like to see development taking place. I should like to convey my appreciation to the hon. member for Hillbrow, the hon. members on our side of the House, and to almost all other hon. members on the opposite side of the House, for not having approached this discussion in a political frame of mind. Planning, the planning of South Africa, is a matter which should really have nothing to do with politics. It is the fundamental object of my department and myself to develop this department in co-operation with all the people and all the organizations and bodies in our country. In this process we want to make as few mistakes as possible. However, we will make mistakes; hon. members should not have any doubt about that. We are trying to do this work, not only in co-operation with the hon. members sitting in this House— hon. members who have been sitting in this House for a few years already know that we consult them readily, in fact that we go out of our way to discuss matters with them when they affect their areas— but also to try to achieve consensus with and the co-operation of the provinces and town councils. We do not have many statutory powers, and if I remember to do so, I shall return to this question at a subsequent stage. The work which we are doing, therefore, we have to do by means of the consensus and co-operation we obtain. Consequently that is our point of departure. For that reason I was pleased today to see that in general we think along more or less the same lines here. The hon. member for Hillbrow commenced his speech in this frame of mind as well. Of course we hope—this is our aim, and I should like to mention it here today—that we will not only obtain the co-operation of hon. members of this House, that we will not only obtain the co-operation of the provinces, city councils and the development associations and of all the many bodies outside, but that we shall also in the course of time obtain the co-operation of the other population groups in South Africa for whom we must also, of necessity, undertake planning in this process. I hope that we will obtain their co-operation to an ever-increasing extent, and that we will, to an ever-increasing extent, need their participation in this planning.

The hon. member for Hillbrow began by making a few basic statements and by saying how they viewed planning in South Africa, how they viewed our department, and what approach they wanted to adopt to this matter of planning. I must say that that as I listened to him—one has to have rather a quick ear—I felt I could agree to a very large extent with what he said. What he said, was precisely what we are trying to do in the department, namely to co-ordinate physical and economic planning, and to mark out a course for South Africa in this regard. This is very important work, to stimulate and co-ordinate research in the scientific sphere, to designate industrial areas and demarcate residential areas in the country for all our communities to the satisfaction and welfare of all, to promote the optimum utilization of land in South Africa by means of various measures, and to plan and to promote viable growth points in South Africa. I think that in that respect we do not differ with him.

There are a few practical suggestions which he made, in respect of which we do differ with him. There is, for example, the old issue of “ideological aims”, to which we have already devoted so much discussion. We have said that we have a specific ethnic structure in South Africa and that we shall of necessity have to take this into account in our planning. This finds expression in the planning of our group areas and in our decentralization policy, to which the United Party and we have already devoted a great deal of discussion. I think we have agreed to differ on this score. We believe that ideology can never be eliminated in certain areas of our planning. As has been stated on more than one occasion, an ideological objective is in fact nothing but an ideal in a certain direction and it does not always have the unfavourable connotation the Opposition would like to attach to it. In addition we do not think that we can unite all research organizations in one department, but we do agree that our country should spend as much of its gross national product as possible on research.

The hon. member also referred to group area planning. It seems to me as though they support this as well. The hon. member did not say whether they differ on this score, but he did say that they advocated a policy of “area demarcation for residential purposes”. He said: “It will be done by a demarcation board”. I assume that this will also to a large extent be done under the Act which we have at present. As I understand it, it will also be a legally enforceable instrument. It is, in other words, a group area by another name. The hon. member asked whether we would appoint Coloureds and Indians to this board on the basis of what appeared in one of the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister. I should not like to venture an opinion in that regard this afternoon. I have already stated, at the beginning of the session in the Senate, that I shall not close that door, but I think it would be sensible of me to say today that this is a matter on which the Government has to decide. Personally I think that the Government could wait to see whether the Theron Commission will not possibly make a recommendation in this regard, and subsequently perhaps consider the principle of whether we want in one way or another, to involve the Coloureds and the Indians more closely in the demarcation of group areas.

We shall involve the Black people in that as well. You did not mention the Black people.

I accept that the United Party will do that, and I do not want to dispute that. I just want to inform the hon. member that the Group Areas Act as it reads today demarcates group areas only for Whites, Coloureds and Indians. No group areas are demarcated for Black people.

The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development deals with that.

Yes, it is dealt with by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Since the hon. member has raised the question of growth points, I might as well deal with this as well now. We in the Department of Planning believe that we have to designate and identify certain areas in our country as growth points. Those areas are primarily areas where there is heavy population pressure, and also areas which have lagged behind in the sphere of development and which require development. Now it is true that we are in such areas offering industrialists certain benefits for going there. Such an area is for example East London-Berlin where we have gone to a very great deal of trouble, and to which I shall return when I deal with the hon. member for East London City. As I have said, it is part of the policy of the Government to designate growth points. These growth points are identified by a growth points committee which is part of my department. In this way we have designated growth points in various parts of South Africa. Of course we cannot designate growth points throughout the country; we have to be sparing in the designation of growth points because development would come to a standstill if there are too many of them.

It goes without saying that, because there are many people in South Africa, there has to be development, and that that development can never end. At present our population totals approximately 22 million people, but in the next 25 to 30 years the population will double. In other words, as many houses as there are in South Africa today to accommodate these 22 million people, will have to be built in the next 25 to 30 years to accommodate the additional 22 million people. Those houses will require space, materials, transportation systems, etc. All the additional people will require food, educational facilities and everything associated with this. Now, it is true that in the world in which we are living today our problem on the one hand is a problem of development, but on the other hand it is a problem of conservation. Development there has to be, for the people have to be accommodated, they have to be conveyed, they have to have food to eat, and they have to have clothing to wear. There has to be factories to produce all these things for them. There has to be motor-cars, buses, trains, ships, and everything associated with this. Therefore, there has to be development. But there must also be conservation, for development brings destruction and pollution in its wake. How to strike a good balance between the two, is the major question confronting the world today. This is also the major question confronting South Africa. This is the question which is encountered to a greater extent in certain parts of the world and among certain population groups in the world. There are today a number of countries in the world which have reached a population stabilization point where the population is no longer increasing. I could enumerate them, but hon. members probably know which countries these are. There are approximately 11 such countries which already have zero population growth today. It goes without saying that a 1% growth in the gross national product will raise the standard of living in those countries. The existing facilities at the universities are adequate for the few children who are being born. The same applies in regard to research facilities. Those countries are ahead and will stay ahead. They are going ahead to an increasing extent. In contrast there are certain countries in the world where the population growth is between 2% and 2,4%. If the gross national product does not increase by the same percentage, the standard of living of the people in those countries diminishes. So many children are born that, if the average educational standard at present is standard II, which indeed it approximately is, they are virtually unable, owing to the high birthrate, to maintain the standard II standard, to say nothing of raising it. The problem in the world today is that the rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer; the erudite are becoming more erudite and the illiterate more illiterate. Those who acquire knowledge on the basis of research, are accumulating more and more knowledge and are getting further and further ahead, while the others are lagging further and further behind.

United Party and National Party!

To a certain extent we are saddled with all these problems in South Africa. The increasing numbers of people want more space, etc.

Just consider the situation in our cities, to which the hon. member for Somerset East referred. He discussed the Port Elizabeth guide-plan. We do not have only one population group in South Africa for whom we have to plan a city. Because we have various population groups, we must in fact plan a few adjoining and interrelated cities, with the transportation systems and everything that accompanies such planning. I want to say again—this is something which an hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Walmer, took amiss of me—that I have great appreciation for the work done in the past by the provinces and the town councils in respect of physical planning, the planning of land utilization in our country. If it had not been for them, there would have been chaos. They are the people who undertook the planning in the past, and I say that in general their planning was sound. I have appreciation for that, and I am not afraid to express my thanks to them. However, situations change. In our cities many additional factors have developed which were not there previously. The central Government has become involved to an increasing extent in the cities as a result of the railways and other transportation systems, and as a result of community development and urban renewal. It has become almost impossible for the local authority to continue to undertake the planning alone, for there are so many government departments with which it has to liaise from time to time. The recommendation of the Niemand Commission that co-ordinating committees be established, under the control of this department, to plan these greater metropolitan complexes, was a good one. Today we have guide-plan committees for all the major cities, and also for a considerable number of the smaller cities in our country. Such progress has already been made with the overall guide-plan for Port Elizabeth that we are already able to submit it to the planning council for Greater Port Elizabeth, from whence it will come to me. Whereas the province, the local authority and the various government departments which had a planning and development function formerly all undertook their own planning, they today meet together around one table when a guide-plan is being drawn up. In this way the planning objectives of each of them can be reconciled to one another and combined in the drawing up of one major overall plan, in which we try to make provision for the next 30 years. We think that if we could accomplish this, we would have achieved a great deal. In such a case each of those bodies knows what the others are doing. Each body knows, then, that if it wishes to alter its plan, it has to consult the other bodies so that the entire plan may be readjusted. We are working on guide-plans for Cape Town and Pretoria, and progress is being made in this regard. The Natal Urban and Regional Planning Commission has completed the planning for Durban, and is now working on a guide-plan for Pietermaritzburg. We have already announced quite a number of guide-plans for smaller places. The guide-plans for Bloemfontein and East London are virtually complete. We are working on the guide-plan for Johannesburg at the moment, which is a very difficult area. You will see that what we have actually accomplished for South Africa here is something exceptional, for the space in our cities is diminishing. If we are able to get together now, indicate the course for the future and place the entire matter on a sound basis so that all the needs for the foreseeable future will be met and everyone is aware of what other organizations are doing, I think we would be doing something which would be of benefit to our country.

However, it is not only in our metropolitan areas, but also away from those areas, that new growth points are arising, growth points which have been selected for very special reasons, reasons such as population pressure and development needs. Let us consider a growth point such as Richards Bay. The planning of Richards Bay has been done by our department. I think it has been done well. Since the hon. member for Sea Point happens to catch my eye, I think it is probably not inappropriate that I refer to what he said. In the session up to now I have heard him referring a few times to Richards Bay as well. When we were working on Richards Bay, not all the areas of the Republic had been proclaimed in terms of the Physical Planning Act. We then proclaimed the Richards Bay area in terms of the old Natural Resources Development Act of 1947. The only object with the proclamation of Richards Bay was to ensure that development, within specified limits, did not proceed haphazardly. Within that area the development was then arranged according to a plan which we drew up. Bodies operating within that area could not do as they pleased. The object of the proclamation was therefore to bring about orderly development and to direct and guide our actions, within one overall pattern. However, this had nothing to do with the fixing of prices. Nor did the old Natural Resources Development Act make provision for the power to freeze an area as far as land prices were concerned. It is true that in the Richards Bay area, most of the land is owned by the State. It was therefore a position which we could not compare with Saldanha. In this regard the position is that Saldanha has been declared to be a controlled area in terms of section 6 of the Physical Planning Act. In all the controlled areas in the Republic, except where otherwise provided, the utilization of land cannot be changed without the consent of our department. Consequently this is the position in Saldanha Bay, which is a controlled area in terms of section 6 of the Physical Planning Act. In the second place we drew up a guide-plan for Saldanha as well. The hon. members for Moorreesburg and Orange Grove both referred to this. The first guide-plan which we drew up, we advertized publicly. We had a public hearing, and the people submitted their representations to us. We then effected changes and released an amended guide-plan, in which the decisions we had taken were made public. Therefore, there are now two guarantees for development. The local authority, to which the Administrator in co-operation with me, will nominate the majority of the members, and to which the voters of Saldanha and Vredenburg will elect their representatives, will, we hope, come into operation in January of next year. But until such time as that local authority is functioning and has a proper area of jurisdiction in terms of the ordinance passed this year by the Provincial Council, there are, as has been said, these two safety-valves which we have. The one is that the change in the utilization of land has to be approved by us. The second is that neither we, nor any other body which is responsible for development there, may act outside the scope of the guide-plan. However, we have no power, nor will we ever have such power, to prohibit anyone from selling his land at whatever price he wishes to ask.

May I ask a question? Can the hon. the Minister say in what year Saldanha was proclaimed a controlled area under the Physical Planning Act?

1973.

In what year was there a statement from the Government that a harbour would be constructed in Saldanha? Was it in 1969?

It was prior to 1973, but the fact of the matter is that before we took control, no development had taken place. We had no problems as a result of the wrong developments. The persons who bought there are today subject to the control which we exercise. In other words, they took a chance. I understand there are people who bought in Richards Bay years ago and who are still holding on to their land today, who still have no use for it because it does not yet fit into our planning.

I think I must simply deal with the hon. members one by one. The hon. member for Smithfield referred to the membership of our Parliament in the International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment. I want to say that I in fact had something to do with this, for when I was in Germany, I went to the then head office of these people. I welcome the fact that we can be a member. They do not want Governments there, nor Ministers. They want Parliaments to be represented there, and all Parliaments are welcome there. We should like to send people over. This year Mr. Pansegrouw, the hon. member for Smithfield, and the hon. member for Hillbrow were to have gone, but in the end they remained where they were, for there were, as I heard, certain problems in regard to their going to Nairobi. But I think we shall, and hope we shall, be able to continue this membership and be able in future to send our members of Parliament, the leaders of the groups or those nominated by the groups, on both sides of the House, over.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to District Six. We all know the history of District Six. I think, too, that we all know what the considerations were and what the aims underlying everything which was done in District Six and the steps which were taken there were. Consequently I am not going into this matter. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Government. I must say that the hon. member raised the matter today in a responsible manner, but the fact remains that a great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Government, and is still being done even today in the newspapers. I think the Government was unfairly criticized by organizations and bodies which, figuratively speaking and I think literally as well, did not lift a finger in the past to remedy a very difficult and a very undesirable situation. Consequently I am not going into this matter again today, except to say this: There are one or two aspects of the District Six situation which are still receiving attention.

The next member to participate in the discussion was the hon. member for Namakwaland. I thank him for his kind words of thanks to the department for the visit which had been arranged. As a result of that visit we drew up a regional plan, a little regional plan for that mineral-rich area which is now on the eve of development. Subsequently we have already received the assurance that there will be a railway line. I think this is a wonderful achievement. We are also considering whether we cannot take the tarred road further, i.e. the tarred road from Springbok via Aggeneis and Pofadder to Alheit and Kakamas. The hon. member mentioned the power-line which is going to be erected, from De Aar via Copperton and Bushman-land to Springbok. They have already made a great deal of progress with the construction of this power-line. In addition there is the water project which the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs announced. I think it is a very good plan to bring one major pipeline from the Orange River and then have outlet points as these are required. I think that the planning we have done has produced very good results. We shall consider the hon. member’s proposal in regard to that part of Namaqualand where the Coloured farmers are, and where there are also rich mineral deposits. We do not believe that the development of a harbour at Boegoe Bay is at this early stage an economic proposition. There are other minerals in Namaqualand as well, which will in due course increase in importance. We are aware of this, and I want to assure the hon. member that we will bear in mind the inclusion of all these things when we consider that area.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga spoke about the position of the Coloureds at Stanger. As far as I know, Stanger is in the northern part of Natal.

It is on the north coast.

Yes, on the north coast. The hon. member asked me to direct urgent attention to the proclamation of a Coloured group area at Stanger. As I told the hon. member in my reply to a question the other day, there was a time when it was decided not to proclaim such a group area. However, I have received representations from the local authority at Stanger and I can tell the hon. member that these representations are at present receiving my full consideration. I do not want to commit myself further apart from saying that these representations will receive my full and sympathetic consideration. It is possible that something may develop along the lines he suggested.

*The hon. member for Moorreesburg made a fine speech on that area of the Cape from Duinefontein, Dassenberg, Mamre, Darling up to Saldanha. In view of the new west coast road which is under construction, and in addition a possible railway route, he asked us to draw up a guide-plan for this area as soon as possible. The hon. member’s plea did not fall on deaf ears. I want to compliment the hon. member for Moorreesburg for his intense interest in certain areas of our country. He comes forward with constructive plans. In any case, we are already engaged in drawing up a guide-plan for this area. I just want to say that the Divisional Council of the Cape at Dassenberg is doing very good work for us, as the hon. member also indicated. From the beginning of next year we will be able to inform the industrialists that they will be able to come and select their land and conclude an agreement with the Industrial Development Corporation for the establishment of industrial complexes, if they so desire. From the beginning of next year we will be able to supply them with services. The Department of Community Development is also going to commence a housing scheme adjoining Dassenberg which will, in the first phase, provide 600 houses for Coloureds. I may probably divulge this next piece of information, for it is no secret. The first major television manufacturing unit is also going to be constructed there. Consequently we also have quite a few industrialists who are interested, and who will investigate the matter there next year. Therefore, a new growth point is also being created here.

I just want to say one thing now about the Cape Flats area. At the latest census there were, if I remember correctly, 580 000 Coloureds in the Peninsula area. People often speak lightly and say that we should move these people, or some of them, up along the west coast. This is not something which one can decide about over a cup of coffee. What we would very much like to do, is to channel the influx from the interior in some other direction. The Coloureds in South Africa have freedom of movement. They may go where they please. The women in Cape Town may write to a friend in Victoria West and ask whether she does not know of a Coloured servant in Victoria West who would like to come and work as her domestic servant in the Cape. If they can find such a girl in Victoria West, there is nothing to stop her coming to the city. If the girl marries a Coloured here, she remains here. If they subsequently write to her parents asking them to come down here as well, then her parents also come to the city. It will not longer be easy for us to prevent this kind of process either, but we can at least do our best to encourage development in Beaufort West and Worcester. I do not know whether this can be termed ideological. According to the interpretation and view of the Opposition this is in fact ideological, and let it be ideological then. However, if we are able to stimulate meaningful development in Worcester, then at least the people in that greater area, the young people, will find work there. I recall the trouble we took to get Rainbow Chickens to Worcester, and I recall the excellent conditions the employers are going to offer their Coloured employees. Under those circumstances a Coloured will not come to Cape Town. He will prefer to work there. The same would apply if we were able to do something in Beaufort West. However, there will always be people coming to the city, and here there will always be young people who grow up and get married, and consequently there will always be the natural increase. The economic growth will also be here, and consequently work for them. In other words, we shall keep on having to make provision here for more Coloureds in this area. We shall simply not be able to evade that responsibility. What we are doing, we will have to do in a realistic and practical manner. We must also do as much as is possible along the west coast. We must not have any doubts about this, because it is the right thing to do. With the bit of influence we have in Saldanha and in the Dassenberg/Mamre complex, I hope we will be able to attract our people thither, inter alia, as a result of the quality of the housing which we will make available to them there. I think that answers the question of the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove has said that the Saldanha area is a critical area. I agree with him. He says that never before have we had a case like this. I must, however, disagree in one respect and that is that at Richards Bay we also have quite a critical area. He is welcome to go there at any time and we shall show him everything. Richards Bay is a rather swampy lake area. It is an area with this wonderful bay which has now been cut in two by the wall on which the railway line is built. A new passageway to the sea has also been cut through the dunes on the other side. If the hon. member should visit Stellenbosch he can see a model there of the Richards Bay area as it was and as it will eventually look when the new environmental set-up has been completed. Investigations are at present being carried out to establish whether this set-up will work. The indications are that it will work well. The South African Railways Administration is providing the money to finance those constructions.

Have you seen what happened where the bush has been cleared?

No, I have not been there recently.

It looks sad.

But the hon. member is indeed always sad.

But does the hon. member not think that bushes can again be planted there?

The newly-planted bush does not seem to be taking.

I would say that it is still too early to come to a definite conclusion in that regard.

Returning to the question of Saldanha Bay, I would say that its development could create one of the most difficult situations in South Africa as far as the conservation of the environment is concerned. We have the lagoon there and we are going to develop a wonderful harbour. In order to allow ships into the harbour, dredging has to be done. My personal feelings are that the lagoon will be polluted to a certain extent irrespective whether we have a commercial harbour at Donkergat or not. Of course we would not like the lagoon to be polluted; we want to keep it as clean as possible. In this regard there is no difference of opinion between us and the hon. member on the other side. The CSIR is at present carrying out scientific studies at Saldanha Bay. We have an ecological commission and we are doing everything in our power to combat the possibility of pollution. A fairly wide area surrounding the lagoon will be proclaimed as a conservation area. We shall be very, very careful, but I am nevertheless afraid that eventually there will be pollution to a certain degree. The hon. member has also asked me whether we can guarantee that no further dredging will take place in the lagoon area. All I can say in that regard is that we have broached this matter with Iscor. We have done our best. Iscor has given us an assurance that it is a more practical and economic proposition to use material which has been procured elsewhere. We did press them for an unqualified assurance about future dredging, but we have not received such an assurance yet. I can assure the hon. member that we will do what we can in this regard and I am fairly hopeful that we shall succeed.

*Another hon. member, and I think the hon. member for Orange Grove as well, asked certain questions in regard to Donkergat and the guide-plan. I want to point out that a guide-plan is in fact only a policy which is drawn up with a view to the future and changed when necessary. We were unable to deviate from the original guide-plan for the Saldanha area since the South African Railways pointed out to us that they have to bear in mind the possibility that they will at some stage or another require a commercial harbour in the Saldanha complex, and asked us to reserve the Donkergat area for them on our plan. The area in which they are interested is not situated between the lagoon and the harbour, but on the open sea side. They will build the harbour, if it becomes necessary, on the open sea side. We had to reserve it for them, otherwise it could have been utilized for some other purpose. Subsequently, if the S.A. Railways no longer needs it, we shall have to revise the plan again. This also ties in with the Sishen/ Saldanha railway line. The Railways will in future have to have a place for a harbour where it can handle general freight. If things work out as they should in the Saldanha Bay harbour it may just be possible that we will in due course be able to revise our guide-plan. Of course this will not happen soon. We will then be able to designate other rights of utilization for the Donkergat area. This is not something for today or the day after, but if it should happen, in years to come, that the S.A. Railways must have a commercial harbour fronting on the open sea there, and it has to build a bridge, as has been suggested, it will have to be established very carefully, by means of model studies, precisely what effect this would have on the ecology.

The hon. member for Kuruman referred to the mineral potential of the North-Western and Northern Cape. The hon. member represents a very rich area. He said that the key to the development of that area was the extension of the Sishen/Saldanha railway line to Kuruman, Pudimoe and further north. The department appointed very competent people—the same people who visited the hon. member for Namaqualand—to draw up a guide-plan for this Kuruman area, with all its potential—for example the nearby homelands, the minerals, transportation, etc. When we receive this report, possibly next year, we shall direct our attention to this area. The hon. member also referred to a Coloured rural area in the Northern Cape which could be considered in collaboration with the Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. I wonder whether the hon. member should not first settle this matter with that department. We cannot proclaim Coloured rural areas if the Coloureds themselves do not ask us to do so. And then, too, we will have to see whether and where we are able to find such an area.

†The hon. member for Von Brandis had as his subject the question of energy. If he does not mind I would rather talk about energy and on the environment in general on Monday.

*The hon. member for Vryheid discussed his particular area in Natal. He asked for a regional plan for his area as well. We shall devote our attention to that. One can therefore see what a wonderful value and what benefit these regional plans entail. On Monday I shall refer again to how our country has now been divided up into 38 regions, and how we already have an enormous amount of information on many of the regions which is being collected for us by the universities. In this way the Universities of Stellenbosch, Rhodes, and the Free State University and the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit have already completed a great many studies on our behalf. We are now able to draw up the regional guide-plans for the various regions of the country. We are already working on certain of these guide-plans.

†The hon. member for South Coast spoke in the main about group area facilities for the Coloureds in his constituency. As the hon. member knows there is one at Marburg. We have also investigated the feasibility of one at Ixopo, and it is possible that one will be proclaimed there. The need for Coloured group areas at Harding and at Matatiele is also at present receiving our attention. If the authorities concerned would like to come forward with proposals for a Coloured, group area at Ifafa the situation may be met in that way, in any case, the hon. member and his local community are welcome to come forward with suggestions. We shall be prepared to look at them in order to find out if there is a need for Coloured group areas in that part of Natal. I can only tell him that I am not sure and that I shall find out and tell him on Monday who is financing the Umgeni river mouth project which the C.S.I.R. is conducting. The hon. member can also see the planning in the C.S.I.R. laboratories in Stellenbosch.

*The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke discussed the regional development which is not entirely successful. He asked, whether we were not able to make a planner from our office available for each region. If we were to do that, it would still be a person who would be on our establishment and who would proclaim our views, while we want to obtain the views of the regional development associations as well. In any case we simply do not have enough people of this kind, although we could possibly try to establish one in each regional office.

The hon. member for Pinelands also spoke about certain matters which mostly concern the environment, and I shall deal with them on Monday.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp gave a fine discourse on his area and pointed out how the gold-mining industry there will in later years decline. He said that we should subsequently substitute industries for the mining industry there. That is exactly what we have in mind. The hon. member is aware that Klerksdorp is one of the five Coloured regional areas in the Transvaal, and that industrialists who establish themselves in Klerksdorp and make use primarily of Coloured labour, may obtain the decentralization benefits which industrialists receive who go to other decentralization points in the country. This includes benefits in the form of low interest rate loans, certain housing loans, special additional tax rebates for their factories and the machinery which they use, as well as tax reductions which are based on the payments they make to the Coloureds on their pay sheets. The latter benefit is taken into account when their taxable profits are determined.

The hon. member for Walmer referred to the co-operation and the consultation which exist between the provinces and our department. On Monday I shall have more to say concerning my views on the vulnerable areas which we have in South Africa. We have very valuable, but very vulnerable areas. In this way there is, inter alia, our coastal areas, including the lakes, lagoons and marsh areas of our country. Then, too, there are the mountainous areas in our country. These areas are wonderful assets which the Creator gave us. A very good example, too, is the Transvaal Low Veld. These areas are areas which we must guard over in South Africa with the greatest care and with the greatest jealousy. We may not alow things to go wrong there. On Monday I shall also discuss what we and the Planning Advisory Council have accomplished, what has been decided and what has been discussed with the provinces and the Administrators. Probably, too, I shall have to discuss Wavecrest on Monday.

†The hon. member took some exception to the fact that I smiled at one of my officials. I can assure him that it had nothing to do with him.