Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation for the accommodating and reasoned approach of the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment in the debate on his Vote on Friday afternoon. It was clear that we can in fact agree with one another in many respects, especially as far as planning is concerned, except that we perhaps advocate a more vigorous growth rate so that we may offer employment opportunities to more people. Another point on which we differ with his is that we do not agree with the enforced decentralization of industries to the border areas for ideological reasons. In this first debate on the Vote Planning and the Environment in this new Parliament, I should like to state the United Party’s approach in respect of the protection of the environment, even though this might have been done in the past.

The first principle is that, as a result of man’s activities, pollution of the environment can render man’s earth uninhabitable. The second principle we accept is that in consequence of the fact that it is the privilege of the State to be the source of all legislative, administrative and financial power and authority, it is its important responsibility and duty, firstly, to identify and make known all forms of pollution and, secondly, to check and to remedy all existing pollution as well as to prevent new sources of pollution from coming into being or developing. Thirdly, it should also guard against the deterioration and degeneration of the environment. In order to achieve these objectives, the authority of the State has to be revealed and identified in one person, i.e. the Minister of the Environment. Consequently a separate Government department is required for this purpose, to concentrate on the protection of the environment.

It would appear to us as though the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment just cannot handle and carry out all the responsibilities with which he has been charged. He has so many boards and committees, works committees and auxiliary committees, that the hon. the Minister and his department themselves do not know from day to day which committees they have, on which committees they are represented and which committees they control. No comprehensive list of boards and committees has been made available, besides the one for the Minister’s own use—and that is not at our disposal—to lead the hon. the Minister through the jungle of boards and auxiliary committees.

The diagram in the report, which indicates only some of these committees and boards, virtually looks like a Christmas tree, with bells, tinsel and all. Right on top there is a star which represents the Prime Minister. No wonder the hon. the Minister has problems with the planning and recommendations in respect of non-White group areas. The problems connected therewith occupy him to such an extent that he cannot devote sufficient attention to the other aspects of his responsibilities. For instance, there is the question of the protection of the environment. During this debate we have heard of the hon. the Minister’s problems in connection with the planning of Coloured group areas.

The position as regards the Indians in South Africa is no different. The situation on the East Rand is really deplorable. One expects a guide plan which is drawn up to result in the zoning of an area, firstly with a view to the optimal use of land for agricultural purposes, the establishment of towns, the location of industries, etc. Areas also have to be zoned for national parks and nature reserves. There are forests such as the Harkerville forest, for example, that beautiful indigenous Knysna forest which must be protected. There is also the question of the elephants in that forest, which is the southernmost area in which elephants are found in their natural state. There are such wonderful places such as the Richtersveld with its curious vegetation, an area which at present cannot afford a livelihood to even a small group of Coloureds and which ought to be zoned for a national park.

There are numerous places of this kind which ought to be attended to. There is the Magaliesberg, the Langebaan lagoon, etc. A nature reserve should be set aside which is representative of every type of ecosystem in the whole of South Africa, before development destroys the natural vegetation. Large parts of our beach and coastline should also be zoned for nature reserves or areas in which no urban development may be undertaken. The town developers have already fragmented and exploited South Africa’s coastal areas to such an extent in order to sell plots and beach houses that it looks like a spreading cancer. Just look at the coasts of Natal and the Cape Province. Places ought to be set aside along our coast which ought to be kept unspoiled for the future. These zonings ought to be enforceable by law on town developers, municipalities and provincial councils. Of course, it should be possible for the Department of Planning to alter zonings, after a thorough ecological as well as a socio-economic investigation. The United Party believes that an ecological investigation should, as a legal obligation, precede every major development and that the report should subsequently be tabled in the House of Assembly. Public opinion expects and demands this. Then the Secretary for Transport would not be able to say there was no Act which obliged him to have an ecological survey made of the Garden Route, as he said recently.

I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his department’s attitude was in regard to the Garden Route and what recommendations his department made in that regard. We have in fact heard that the C.S.I.R. has made a hydrological survey at places such as the estuary of the Keurbooms River and the Bietou. We have also heard that a person such as Prof. John Grindley was to have been appointed to make an ecological survey of the estuary, the lagoon, etc., but it seems to me as if nothing has come of it, and I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell us later on whether they did in fact appoint Prof. John Grindley to make that survey, for we regard it as being very essential.

Sir, in the same way we should also like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the latest investigations, findings and recommendations are for the development at Saldana Bay and Langebaan. The other day he gave us a superficial account here of what was happening there, but we should like to know what has become of the idea that a quay should be built from Langebaan via Schaapeneiland to cut the Langebaan lagoon off from Saldanha Bay and to protect that beautiful area with its natural beauty against oil and dust pollution from Saldanha Bay. The idea was expressed that, just as happened at Richards Bay, a new estuary could be dredged for the Langebaan lagoon, and I should like to know whether model studies are already being made at a place such as Stellenbosch or elsewhere to investigate these proposals, and what possibility there is of implementing an idea such as this.

Sir, the United Party also feels that if one should like to have proper control over pollution by industries, it is essential for a register to be compiled for all the industries in South Africa and the kind of pollution for which they are responsible, as well as the quality and quantity of that pollution. In that case it will be relatively easy to send out inspectors to take samples of the pollution to see whether they still comply with the schedule, and whether or not the standards laid down by the Minister are exceeded. At present we find that there are industries on the Witwatersrand which discharge their acids into the sewers, sometimes directly into the rivers, and that this results in rendering uneconomical other industries which regenerate and made those acids fit for use. It limits the turnover of those industries to something like 750 to 800 tons per month, but if they could push up to 1 000 tons a month the turnover of acid which they can regenerate, such an industry, which fulfils a valuable function, would be rendered economical again. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up on what the hon. member for Benoni said, except just to point out that in the relatively short time during which this department has been handling these matters relating to the environment, a considerable amount of work has already been done, as is also clearly evident from the annual report we received recently, and I think we may be very grateful for this. Sir, during the discussion of this Vote, references were made time and again to the development which is taking place at Richards Bay. In the annual report, too, there is an account of the progress which is being made there.

I can tell you, Sir, that the planning the department undertook there and the projects which are now being undertaken as a result of that planning, are of a very high standard, and these projects are being spoken of highly by planners and nature conservationists, not only here in our country but also abroad. That is why I feel myself at liberty to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the Secretary for the department and its officials and to thank them for the dedicated and efficient service they have rendered there for South Africa. Sir, I cannot refrain from referring in particular to the valuable contribution being rendered by Mr. Pretorius, the deputy chairman of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council. He also serves as chairman of the Richards Bay town council, and under his guidance development is advancing efficiently there. Sir, a great deal has been said and written recently about the growth points in South Africa, and in some instances an unfavourable atmosphere has been created.

I do not want to say anything on the merits of this, but I do want to point out that it holds some disadvantages for a growth point. The establishment of a growth point does not merely entail drawing up plans and gathering data; it is a far more complicated process. One task is to draw industrialists, entrepreneurs and other people to the growth point and then inspire them with confidence. Of course, in our country anyone is free to criticize such a growth point development or certain aspects of it, but when charges or insinuations are made without an understanding of the facts of the circumstances and in the mere hope that they might strike home, it is no longer constructive criticism but plain disparagement. A large degree of responsibility should therefore be displayed before such an attack is launched.

Mr. Chairman, the department’s operational method of dividing the country into various planning regions is to be welcomed. In the region I represent a regional plan has not yet been completed, and I also want to emphasize, as other hon. members have done, that a particular need exists in this regard, and I trust that the matter will enjoy the attention of the department. However, there is one case in particular which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister today. I am referring to Lake St. Lucia. This lake is an exceptional natural phenomenon and is internationally known for its wealth in fauna and flora and the beauty of its environment. Scientists from many parts of the world are interested in its ecology. Thousands of anglers, naturalists and tourists visit this lake annually, but for some years a struggle has been waged to save this precious natural phenomenon from extinction. Sir, permit me to mention only a few facts to you in regard to this lake. It is situated on the far north coast of Natal; it is approximately 40 km long and, on an average, 10 km wide, and at present there is a winding canal approximately 20 km long connecting the lake to the sea. The area adjoins forestry plantations, sugar-cane fields, Bantu reserves, townships as well as unused State land. A variety of fauna are to be found in the waters of the lake; there are hippopotami, crocodiles, and a large number of species of fish. The lake area is undoubtedly one of the world’s richest bird habitats. More than 300 species of birds have been recorded. There is also a large variety of game in the game parks adjoining the lake; game such as reedbuck, impala, and so on. Sir, all this fauna, all these assets, are being threatened, and this is on account of, to put it briefly, an abnormal increase in the salinity of the waters of the lake as well as a silting up of the lake and its access to the sea. Research has shown that over the past 3 000 to 5 000 years silt has accumulated in the lake to a depth of 15 metres, but the present rate at which silt is being deposited is three times faster than the average in the past. In the past various State departments and other bodies have done valuable work to curb this state of decline. South Africa is greatly indebted to, for example, the Department of Water Affairs as well as the Natal Provincial Administration and the Natal Parks Board for the conservation work which has been carried out, but the conservation work which is really required and which is essential is of such magnitude that it cannot be handled successfully by one body or department, either alone or separately or on an ad hoc basis. That is why I am turning to the hon. the Minister and pleading for his department to take the lead and effect co-ordination between all the various authorities and other interested parties. Then this gigantic and important conservation task can be placed on a sound footing.

There are various steps which have to be done, and what is required now is action. I am therefore asking, under the co-ordinating hand of this department, for a dynamic plan of action to be initiated. For example, a fresh water supply to the lake has to be guaranteed, from the Pongola-poort Dam, for instance. Various other steps are also required. Consideration has to be given to enlarging the conservation area, up to Sordwana Bay, for example. Consideration has to be given to the control and management of the area and once that has been decided, the control of this area should be handed over to one single, efficient body. Sir, the lakes of South Africa are just as important a feature of our environment as are our mountains and plains. In fact, we have a wealth of natural beauty, and lake St. Lucia is one of those scintillating jewels. It is not only an asset to Natal; it is a priceless national asset which has to be protected for posterity [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Eshowe has made an excellent speech on the ecology of Northern Natal and the development of Richards Bay. The only fault I can find with the hon. member’s speech is that when he thanked the officials of the department for the work done there—and I share his thanks—he omitted to thank his predecessor for the work he has done in that constituency. I believe it is quite obvious that this hon. member has read the Hansards of his predecessor in this connection and that he is grateful for the ground-work done by him. But I do not wish to follow the hon. member any further because I want to speak to the hon. Minister today about the history of a bridge, a bridge which was built in the years 1958 and 1960 across one of our most beautiful rivers in South Africa, in fact our second longest tidal river, the Bushmans River. Bridges were built across the two channels, the main channels of this river, in 1958 and 1960. They were built by the Cape Provincial Administration with the most strange sort of engineering that I have ever contemplated even as a farmer. The method which was used here in a tidal river 22 miles long is that a bridge was built a mile away from the mouth and that the main channels of the river were dammed, and in these dam walls holes were dug in order to put the pylons down. The bridge was constructed over the dam wall. After the bridge was constructed an attempt was made to remove the dam wall. It was an unsuccessful attempt because where you had water 25 feet deep you ended up with water from two feet to five feet deep. Excuse me, Sir, for using the old term but these are more familiar to me than the metric terms. This is the situation as it is today. I have fought for the removal of this rubble under this bridge since I became a Provincial Councillor in 1965 by questions and debate in that House, and in this House since 1969 when I became a member of this hon. House. In 1966 a subsidiary committee was appointed by the Department of Planning to go into the question of river-mouths, lagoons and vleis. It was under the chairmanship of Mr. Le Grange. In 1971 the subsidiary committee published its report on the section between Baakens River and the Kowie River. In connection with the Bushmans River the report states on page 14, paragraph 2.7.2.6.—

These have been used between the two bridges on this river. The report continues—

My colleague in the provincial council has taken this up repeatedly in the provincial council. I have taken it up with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure which, we have established, is the owner of the river-bed. There has been legal opinion on this and the ownership of the river-bed rests with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. On 5 February 1974, if the hon. Minister will look at the questions put in the House, I established by way of a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that the Cape Administration did not obtain permission from the Department of Lands—it was the Department of Lands at the time the bridge was built—to tamper with the bed of the Bushmans River. I immediately took this matter up with the Minister because permission should have been asked and I believe that conditions should have been laid down, either by that department or by the Department of Planning. The Minister then informed me on 6 February 1974, in writing, that his department was in touch with the Administration of the Cape in regard to the implementation of the Le Grange Commission Report, from which I have just quoted in this House. On 26 August 1974, after extensive negotiations with the Cape Administration, the Minister was able to inform me as follows—

The Provincial Council member is doing this with the Cape Administration and I believe that the hon. Minister should also press this case with the Cape Administration because we have a magnificent ecological asset in the Bushmans River. There are 22 miles of tidal river with heavy bush and steep banks, full of bird and animal life. This river should be preserved and it should be stopped from turning into a stinking lagoon, which it is rapidly doing. Thousands of tons of silt collect above this bridge every year. Anyone who has fished that river all his life, as I have, can tell you that the tidal flow since the building of that bridge has slowed down immensely above the bridge. Unfortunately we have no scientific measurements of the tidal flow before the building of the bridge. The subsidiary committee published its report in 1971. The bridge was built from 1958 to 1960 and many of us have been fighting this ever since it was built. It is now 1974—in other words, 14 years since that bridge was built. It is this type of deliberate interference with the ecology and this type of almost insolent refusal on the part of the Cape Provincial Administration to rectify what is obviously wrong that causes public alarm when any new roadway or freeway is suggested. One cannot blame the public for taking up this attitude when they have a living example of what can happen in this bridge and many other bridges across our estuaries. The hon. the Minister in his reply on Friday said that his department had no legal qualifications in matters like these. That is why we believe that there should be legislation. There must be legislation that will enable the hon. the Minister to see to it that the recommendations of his department are implemented. Otherwise, we might just as well write off this department. It is no good planning if you cannot implement your planning. It is no good appointing committees and commissions if their recommendations cannot be implemented. We believe that it is long overdue that this should happen. We sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet will introduce legislation which will enable this hon. Minister to see to it that the planning of his department and that the recommendations of the commissions and committees will be implemented by subsidiary bodies. I leave this question of the Bushmans River there. I believe that the Bushmans River is a great ecological wonder in South Africa that can be saved by the spending of a little bit of money. I believe this bridge was originally built in a cheap manner and it will cost money to rectify that cheap manner of building. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take notice of this and that he will put pressure on the roads department of the Cape Provincial Administration to see that this is rectified. I know that the Department of Nature Conservation in the Cape Province is wholly behind me in what I say. I believe that it is necessary and that it must be done.

I want to move from this subject to another subject. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the position of Grahams-town in relation to industrial development. I have received conflicting replies during this session in this House to my question as to whether Grahamstown has been declared a growth point or whether it merely has the status of a border industry. I believe there is a difference between a declared growth point and a place that has border industry facilities. It has also been said to me in reply to a question in this House that people who open an industry in Grahamstown will be able to receive the facilities of border industries if they employ Bantu resident in the town of Grahamstown. This is a little bit in conflict with the policy as it has been interpreted previously and I should like to get an explanation from the hon. the Minister in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said, except to say that in respect of the first matter he referred to I have a great deal of sympathy with him. The nature and the scope of the activities of the Department of Planning make this department one of the most important departments in the Republic of South Africa. The latest annual report of the department contains a great deal which relates to what the hon. the Minister and his department have achieved, and I want to congratulate them on that. There is, however, one very important matter which affects the East Rand and my constituency in particular, a matter about which I want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. It concerns the resettlement of the Indians in the Springs area and the planning involved in such resettlement. I know that this particular matter falls under the section dealing with group areas, and I do not want to discuss the principle this afternoon, for the principle, which is a sound principle in my opinion, has always been acceptable to me. I emphasize that the principle does not enter into it as far as I am concerned. As far as residential segregation is concerned—something which was engineered by this principle and by the relevant Act—a great deal has been achieved in the past to eliminate possible areas of friction between races, for all those who have been affected have always understood and accepted, with a great deal of responsibility, that the essential removals which had to take place will be to everyone’s benefit in the long run. So, in fact, Whites, Coloureds and Indians have been moved from time to time, but the uncertainty caused by such removals has remained limited to a minimum. Therefore, my concern is not the principle that people have to be moved. As far as the East Rand is concerned, my concern, in the first place, is the planning involved in such removals. Such planning has to testify to far-sightedness and realism. I am afraid that, as far as the East Rand is concerned, we cannot say that the planning which accompanied the application of the Group Areas Act has always testified to far-sightedness in the past. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, we on the East Rand have the situation that plans have been made to settle the Coloureds at Boksburg. And that was a sound idea, but subsequently we found that as far as far-sightedness is concerned, the planning fell short and, consequently, that particular group area soon became too small. For that reason other places had to be found. I am mentioning this because the same is happening with the resettlement of the Indians. It was planned to accommodate the Indians at Actonville on the East Rand, but no sooner had the Indians who had resided in Benoni been accommodated there than it appeared that Actonville was too small. I say that this is the kind of planning which is no good for the simple reason that, when something like this happens, it creates a feeling of uncertainty and frustration among the people concerned. Since we are striving for good race relations or ethnic relations, this cannot be allowed to happen.

As far as the Indians of Springs are concerned, consideration is at present being given to accommodating them_ in another area. As the hon. the Minister knows, a place called Bakerton is at present the subject of an investigation for this purpose. I would be neglecting my duty as a representative of that area if I did not state in no uncertain terms that the proclamation of Bakerton is going to prove a repetition of short-sighted planning, and I shall advance my reasons for that statement. Bakerton comprises 154 ha of land and is situated next to a stream. According to the highest high-water mark of 1943, a portion of that land has to be set aside for flood-water which might possibly occur. If one deducts that portion, a piece of land remains which will not be large enough to accommodate the Indians of the East Rand for an indefinite period. I want to add to that immediately that it has been the idea up to now, and has been performed in this way in practice, that the stands should measure 50 ft. by 50 ft. in size. At the same time I want to say that I do not think this is correct planning either, and that that land is too small to accommodate those people. As regards the Indians, we are dealing there with a very responsible community, but if we are now going to accommodate people at a place where there is a possibility that they might find, in eight or ten year’s time, that not everyone can be settled there, the feeling will definitely take root among them that, amongst other things, they are simply being pushed around by the Whites. That is why I want to plead in all earnest this afternoon that, when group areas are planned, planning will take place in such a way that people of the same race will be grouped together and that such groupings will hold good for at least a few generations. In that way we will obtain racial peace and racial harmony in this country. What is more, in this particular instance—I do not have time to deal with it fully this afternoon—these people were specifically told over the years that they would not be settled at Bakerton. But now Bakerton is nevertheless being considered as a possibility. This creates the impression that we do not know what we are doing. I am therefore pleading in all earnest for these people to be resettled and resettled very soon, for their own sake, but also for the sake of good relations. While there is still a possibility, Bakerton should be abandoned and other land should be considered. I can give you the assurance, Sir, and I have the necessary information at my disposal, that other land is in fact available in that area, land which is large enough and so well-situated that when the time comes one day powers of local government can be given to the Indians as well, for they will be so well-established that it will be possible to grant them such powers of government. I therefore want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and investigate the possibility of acquiring other land for this purpose, and that it be advertised. If that is done, it will conduce to our mutual benefit in that area.

Mr. Chairman, we have great appreciation for the contribution made by the hon. member for Springs. His positive contribution testifies to courage since he, as a member of the Government, laid bare a problem and made positive suggestions. It is not my intention to exploit it in any way, for it is in the interests of South Africa and all its people that an argument of that nature should in fact elicit a reaction from the Government side.

I want to state that the removal of people in South Africa has caused tremendous grief and misery, and, in many instances, also a strong feeling of revolt against the White man. I want state positively that, if it is essential for the Government to continue with these removals in terms of its policy and ideology of separate development, it can prevent their being accompanied by this feeling of revolt and hatred only if it is prepared, in the first place, to consult the groups and people who are to be moved. The Government must discuss matters with them and take every step to prevent misery and grief accompanying the removals. If removals can be effected with the support and co operation of the people who are being moved, it can only be to the benefit of inter-racial relationships in South Africa.

Now I want to come to the discussion of the Environment Vote and say that, whereas the environment is apparently of minor importance today when being discussed in the House of Assembly of South Africa and in many governing bodies in the world, the environment and everything related to it will be the most important topic for discussion in all governing bodies throughout the world within the next decade. I briefly want to give my reasons for saying this. The world is concerned about the maintenance of world peace, about the population explosion and its effect on world politics, about the tremendous task, which will gain in magnitude in future, of feeding the millions upon millions of people in the world. It has already been predicted that the world population could increase three-fold over the next 25 years. There is also concern about the pollution of the air and the water, and of the soil in which our food is produced. There is concern about exhausting our natural resources, resources which are limited and which can no longer be exploited at the present rate. Then, there is the question of the maintenance of an acceptable economic growth rate, so as to maintain standards of living all over the world. The fact is that all these urgent needs of all the countries of the world unfortunately exist in isolation, in other words, the necessary degree of co-operation does not exist between the people in authority who are in charge of these matters in the respective countries of the world. The necessary mutual connection between these disciplines does not exist. Either the connection is vague or, in certain instances, does not exist at all. I believe the reason for this is that these matters are controlled on an ad hoc basis, in isolation, and that the world has not yet found a discipline which can form a real link and logical connection between all these disciplines. There is a science which can in fact place the matter in the correct perspective, i.e. environmental science, the youngest but at the same time the most rapidly developing science. Environmental science can be the link between all these other disciplines; it can give a logical explanation of the connection between all these relevant disciplines. It is, therefore, not merely a coordinating discipline for all these other important disciplines; it ought also to be, and will in fact be, the controlling discipline over all the others. To be specific, it is directly concerned with the exploitation of man’s mineral and natural resources and it is directly concerned with the protection of man’s environment, the water, the air and the soil. It is directly concerned with population control, food production and with the survival of man on earth. I want to make the assertion that the Government should establish a ministry of the environment at once so that this ministry may be independent of all the other departments. It must, in fact, co-ordinate all the other departments. I want to say, in particular, that it should exercise control over all the other departments. My own opinion is that such a department should be directly responsible to the Prime Minister. It should be the department that advises the Prime Minister on everything related to the conservation of the environment—in other words, with all the disciplines related to the exploitation, application and protection of the environment. If it cannot fall directly under the Prime Minister, it should fall under the most senior Minister in the Cabinet and the latter should be directly responsible to the hon. the Prime Minister. It should be a rung above the other Cabinet posts; it should be the co-ordinating, controlling discipline in the Cabinet. If we do this, I foresee that the planning of our economy will come to be viewed in a different light. Then there will not be a helter-skelter chase to maintain a particular growth rate, but true planning of the economy which will comply with the requirements of environmental conservation. If we do this, we will also come to view agriculture in a totally different light. This is the sector of our economy which produces food for our population. It will also be much easier for us to deal with other problems which might arise. I believe that the combating of soil erosion will also enjoy much higher priority in South Africa than is the case at present, i.e. when it is seen in the correct perspective and in the proper context of the conservation and survival of the environment and, arising out of that, the protection and the survival of man on earth. Also as far as mining is concerned, i.e. the exploitation of our natural and mineral resources, the resources are limited. Many people suggest that if resources on the sea-bed were to be exploited, we would have resources for thousands of years to come. However, that is not so. The faith displayed in technology by the person who has no knowledge of it, is alarming. Technology cannot perform miracles. Technology can only exploit and apply that which one has, one’s limited resources, in the interests of mankind. It cannot, however, stretch those resources beyond the natural limits. [Time expired.]

That was a very fine speech.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, pleaded here for something which already exists to a certain extent, i.e. the Department of Planning and the Environment. I should like to mention here a few of the objectives with a view to which this department was established, i.e. the coordination of economic and scientific planning and research in general, the co-ordination of the regional and physical planning of everything connected with the State and the work of the Natural Resources Development Council, and the establishment, wherever possible, of co-operation among all bodies, including the private sector of the national economy which deals with the planning of the aforementioned. All these tasks therefore form part of the terms of reference of the Department of Planning and the Environment. Moreover, I feel that the Department of Planning and the Environment actually has a far greater function than the one it has concerned itself with to date. I foresee that in the years ahead far more work will have to be undertaken by this department. I foresee, for example, that a changed pattern of development is going to become manifest in South Africa, inter alia, especially in view of the announcement made last week by the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of developing the economic potential of the Bantu homelands by means of private White investment capital. In that respect it is essential, in my opinion, for the Department of Planning and the Environment to take an altogether new look at the question of planning for economic development, for new development sectors will come into being there and have to be planned. Consideration will also have to be given to the natural resources involved. One of these areas which pre-eminently lends itself to such a new vision—if I may call it that—of joint planning between White and Bantu in Southern Africa, is in fact the Tugela catchment area. In this area we have everything needed in the line of natural resources and human resources to promote planned development. Here in the Tugela catchment area there is a daily consumption potential of 818 million gallons of water. One of the most illuminating pieces of work, which is used in Australia as a guide in universities, is this “Plan towards the Tugela Basin”. According to this guide the water consumption potential in the Tugela catchment area is sufficient to meet, three and a half times over, the requirements of the following towns and cities, i.e. in respect of both domestic and industrial consumption: Benoni, Bloemfontein, Boksburg, Brakpan, Cape Town, Durban, East London, Germiston, Johannesburg, Kimberley, Krugersdorp, Paarl. Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Randfontein, Roodepoort, Springs, Uitenhage, Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging and Witbank. Water from the Tugela catchment area can meet, three and a half times over, the present water requirements of all those towns and cities. Then there is the possibility in this area, according to plans which have already been drawn up but have not yet put into operation, of making 5 000 megawatts available, through the use of this water, i.e. by means of hydro-electric generation of power. It is considerably more than the Cabora Bassa. In considering that only one part of this scheme, the Drakensberg scheme which will shortly be brought into production, will generate 1 000 megawatts, we can appreciate what a tremendous source of power for industrial development is to be found in this area. The agricultural potential of this area is, through the utilization of this water and the other natural resources, sufficient to provide in the needs of 14 million people. Sir, another aspect I should like to emphasize here is that we are living in economic times in which it is essential for us to plan thoroughly for the new pattern of employment. In my opinion, this area lends itself pre-eminently to this end. Sir, I read an interesting article in The German Tribune about the changed pattern of employment as a result of world economic conditions. Since we find ourselves in such a fluid economy at present that we have to make provision for a changed pattern of employment, it is in my view inter alia, an important task of the Department of Planning to make provision for this. In Germany one finds this interesting phenomen: In the last six months such large-scale unemployment has developed in the construction industry that 192 000 construction workers are unemployed. There are quite a number of these sectors, all of which are labour-intensive, where unemployment has developed. However, more opportunities for employment have arisen in the capital-intensive companies and undertakings. This is the pattern which manifests itself when a measure of recession occurs in the economic development pattern, and in my opinion it is an essential aspect which must be taken into consideration in the planning of South Africa’s economic potential. In view of the state of uncertainty in which the world economy finds itself, it is in my opinion absolutely essential for us to make provision for more employment opportunities in labour-intensive industries in the Bantu homelands in order that we may indeed be of assistance in uplifting these areas so that they may provide their own people with employment. In my opinion the Department of Planning has an important task to plan ahead for these essential aspects, so that they may be attended to. If this aspect, too, could be undertaken by the Department of Planning, it would be fulfilling an important function in coping with the co-ordination and planning of economic development in the complete view of Southern Africa. Since White as well as non-White areas in Southern Africa are economically inter-dependent and can no longer be separated from one another, and since we will become increasingly inter-dependent in the economic sphere, in the same way as the member countries of the European Common Market are economically inter-dependent and have become un-separable, so planning in this country will also have to be undertaken in that direction by the Department of Planning as the coordinator of this planning. I want to plead that the Tugela development area be used as a model for this development pattern since this area, with its natural and human resources, does have that potential.

Sir, I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Klip River and confirm that we already have proper and effective planning in South Africa and that it is being carried out very effectively by the Department of Planning and the Minister. To substantiate this claim I can refer to Pietersburg. In fact, I want to place on record today the thanks of Pietersburg for the exceedingly good work done there by the Department of Planning under the guidance of the Minister. This work was done under the competent guidance of Dr. Rautenbach. I can tell you that Pietersburg would not have been where it is today and would not have experienced the phenomenal growth it is experiencing today if it had not been for the fine co-operation we have had from that department. To date Pietersburg has borrowed approximately R1,25 million from the department, and it is on the point of borrowing a further sum of R½ million from the department, which will mean a total loan of approximately Rl,75 million. This money is borrowed at the very low interest rate of 2%, and has to be repaid after 10 years. After 10 years, of course, the normal interest rate applies. This money is used for the provision of essential services, such as railway sidings for the industrial townships developing there. We have made fine progress, but I want to sound the warning that one cannot expect the development to be initiated exclusively by the State and simply to drop from the skies. This development must also be initiated by local bodies, and local bodies are going to have to work very hard. The local authority will have to plan correctly in its own area and induce the local industrialist to display confidence in his area by investing in it. The local people cannot expect a stranger to come and invest in their area if they themselves do not take an interest and do not invest in it. I also want to say that many success stories have been written in Pietersburg about the development which has taken place there over the past few years. We had young local men there who had virtually no money, but had conviction and perseverance. They made a start and seized at the aids the State offered them, and today they are strong men with flourishing organizations and industries in that area. I think the State has already recovered everything it paid out by way of subsidies and loans at low interest rates. It has recovered everything from these people by way of the income tax it has collected from them. I want to pay tribute because a very large industry of approximately R17 million was established in Pietersburg recently. This industry is going to mean approximately R10 million to the country in foreign exchange. The Department of Planning played a major role in acquiring that industry, for Pietersburg had to compete at international level. However, there was proper co-operation on the part of the State, and this contributed towards that industry being established in Pietersburg.

Mr. Chairman, it was pleasant listening to the further discussion of the Planning Vote. I think it would be best to reply first to the hon. members who spoke last. I sympathize with him for we can discuss the environment, and refer to those hon. members who discussed it. Lastly, I shall come then to the hon. member for Von Brandis who discussed the energy position in South Africa.

Since my notes are arranged in this way, I shall simply begin with the hon. member who spoke last. I sympathize with him for having had only four minutes, but he used his four minutes well. I want to thank him for his words of thanks to the department for the work which was done in Pietersburg. Indeed, we went out of our way to help Pietersburg. I also concur in what he said about the local people there. The initiative and zeal of that group of relatively young inhabitants of Pietersburg was striking. They went out of their way and pulled their weight in this project of making Pietersburg into a successful growth point. I can in all honesty say that their M.P. gave them good support. Owing to its situation and the employment opportunities which it offers, Pietersburg is a very substantial growth point in the overall pattern of South Africa as we see it in the Department of Planning. That is why we made Pietersburg into a growth point. Any suggestion in this debate—and I shall return to this later if I remember—that this department has no powers of implementation, is very far from the truth. There you have Pietersburg, one of the monuments to implemented planning. What is a growth point? This question, inter alia, was also put to me by the hon. member for Albany when he was discussing Grahamstown. In the department we define a growth point as a place or an area in South Africa which, owing to socio-economic considerations, requires a co-ordinated, concentrated effort on the part of the authorities to make it an economic success. We begin in the first place by looking at its infrastructure. This infrastructure we then provide by means of loans which the Treasury makes available through the department to the local authority concerned. Usually we work through the local authority. In the case of Pietersburg we did indeed use the local authority. Once the infrastructure is fully developed—the power, the water, the streets, the industrial area, the water-borne sewerage, the stormwater drainage, the railway junctions, etc.—then that area is ready, and then the IDC, the Decentralization Board and the local people—this I cannot emphasize enough—can set to work and can then find local industrialists and local entrepreneurs and others either to begin a new undertaking there, to expand an undertaking, to establish an expansion there of undertakings established elsewhere, or to re-establish an undertaking which had been established elsewhere under the conditions laid down by the Decentralization Board. These growth points as well as the conditions are indicated on a schedule which is available to everyone. This is what happened in Pietersburg. A phenomenon which is quite common in South Africa is that people and bodies such as the town councils of smaller towns frequently approach my department to ask whether we cannot bring about the development which they need. I want to say that if one has the money one can devise any plan, one can with steel and bricks erect any building, but the scarcest component in the development, in South Africa as well as in the world, is the entrepreneur himself. The entrepreneur is a valuable commodity, if one may call him that, or rather a valuable person. They are the people who are necessary to develop a growth point or a decentralization point; in fact, they are necessary in the metropolitan areas and throughout the entire economy if anything successful is to be developed. That is all I want to say about Pietersburg.

The hon. member who spoke before he did, was the hon. member for Klip River. The hon. member discussed the Tugela basin. He pointed out the exceptional assets which the basin has in the form of its tremendous water resources and its tremendous potential for power generation. He said that if this potential were developed, it could be a tremendous asset for South Africa. I agree with him wholeheartedly. The survey which was made there was made jointly by the provincial administration of Natal and us, and we already have it on a planning basis. The time will come when this potential will be utilized to the full in the interests of South Africa. We are already working on a few growth points in the Tugela basin. But in any event I think that hon. members, including the hon. member for Klip River, will understand when I say that there are also other areas in South Africa where development has to take place. To tell the truth, there are so many other areas in South Africa where we have to preserve equilibrium. No matter how great the potential of one area in South Africa is, we cannot develop everything to the full, and in that way possibly neglecting other parts of our country where development is also vitally necessary, for then it would not be possible to maintain an equilibrium. I have in mind here the development which has come about in the Western Cape as a result of the approval of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, which will try to restore equilibrium in this part of the world a little. We in South Africa are in this position, and all of us sitting in this House know that this is true, that our country has high rainfall regions to the north, the north-east and to the east. The natural potential is situated there. Most of the raw materials are situated in those areas. Almost all our coal deposits are in those areas, and the mining of gold began in those areas. Industrial development began around the area where the gold mining took place, and gradually major market developed. Most people are today living in the Transvaal and in Natal, and most of the economic activity is there. Because we have an extremely valuable part of the world in those areas, with great potential, those areas will have to be developed further as this may become necessary for South Africa and the time for it arrives.

The hon. member also discussed larger labour-intensive industries in the Bantu homelands. That matter is receiving attention; in the economic development programme constant attention is being given to the number of labourers entering the labour market and how the economy should grow or should not grow, so as to cause the labour supply and the labour demand to more or less tally every year. Although the Bantu homelands are excluded from the Physical Planning Act, there is nevertheless consultation. I think that we, on our part, could try to make something more meaningful of this interstate planning action in years to come. I think that this is something by means of which we would serve South Africa in its entirety.

I am skipping the hon. member for Bryanston for the moment because I shall deal with matters relating to the environment presently. The hon. member for Springs referred to the Indians on the East Rand. I should like to tell the Committee that the question of the Indians on the East Rand is not such an easy matter as one may think at first glance. There was a time when it was the aim to have one Indian group area for the East Rand. The group area designated for that purpose at the time was the Actonville area near Benoni. The idea was to accommodate the entire Indian community on the East Rand at Actonville, but that area was fully occupied. There were simply no opportunities for further expansion at Actonville; it was not possible to expand there. At one stage consideration was given to expanding Actonville in the direction of Wadeville, the adjoining Bantu residential area, as soon as the Bantu there had been moved to their new settlement area, but for good reasons it was decided not to move the Bantu from Wadeville in the foreseeable future. Consequently there was simply no room to expand Actonville any further. It is all very well to have such a plan, but we had to face up to the facts of the situation, and of necessity arrived at the conclusion that we would have to seek and find more than one area for the Indians on the East Rand. We did our utmost to find other places. We advertised another area as well, an area situated in the direction of Alberton although it does not fall under the jurisdiction of Alberton, but under the jurisdiction of the Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas. I think it is called the Driefontein area. In any case, that was where we are advertising an area for the Indians of the East Rand. Then we also decided to advertise the Bakerton area to which the hon. member referred. We advertised Bakerton because Indians had been living in Bakerton for the past 60 years. They have not been living there since yesterday, and it is therefore not a new area which we singled out. As I have said, this is an area where Indians have been living for the past 60 years. I am not going to say anything further about Bakerton now, for it is still being investigated by the Group Areas Board, and their report must come to me, after which I have to take the final decision. Consequently the matter is, as it were, sub judice. I just want to say that it is not the intention to make Bakerton the only or an alternative major regional area for the Indians on the East Rand. Bakerton will from the nature of the case be a rather limited area, and there will therefore be rather limited possibilities for accommodating Indians there. Consequently, if Bakeston should be proclaimed and should subsequently be fully occupied, and there are still Indians in that part of the world then, we will have to devise other plans. I merely want to make the point that it is physically impossible to say that we are going to locate the Indians, and also the Coloureds, for example, in only one extensive area and nowhere else. It is simply impossible, and we cannot merely maintain such a policy. This is possible neither in the Transvaal, nor in Natal, nor in the Cape. We are investigating this problem at the moment, and what will happen there, I do not yet know. In addition, there are still the Indians of Nigel who also have their own residential area. At this stage we do not intend causing them to move from Nigel.

As far as Boksburg is concerned, it is true that there were plans at one time to develop a large Coloured group area for the Coloureds of the East Rand. The Reiger Park township near Boksburg was then proclaimed. This residential area too was fully occupied within a few years, so that there are no opportunities for further expansion there either. With the guide plan work which the department is now doing, and to which I also referred on Friday, in terms of which we draw up a guide plan for a metropolitan area or a new development area and as a result of which we are, in our opinion, in a position to do major land utilization planning for the next 30 years, or perhaps longer, by means of these guide plans which we draw up in co-operation with all interested bodies, organizations and departments, the department is for the first time now really able to draw up a plan for a region to make provision, for example, for the settlement of a population group on a large scale, precisely as a result of this advance planning.

The hon. members for Albany and Eshowe discussed matters relating to the environment, and I am therefore skipping them as well now. However, I owe the hon. member for South Coast a reply. I do not see him here at the moment, but I just want to say that I have just established that the model which the CSIR constructed at Stellenbosch, with which they are testing the flow of the Umgeni River with a view to future development, was constructed by the CSIR for the City Council of Durban. The City Council is paying for this. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also spoke, and I just want to point out that when we draw up guide plans for metropolitan areas, it is done in collaboration with the planning consultants of the local authorities concerned. What I am now going to say is important, especially to those members who represent rural constituencies. Since we have now divided the country into 38 regions and a start is being made with the drawing up of regional guide plans, the question may justifiably be asked to what extent we are consulting the local people when these plans are drawn up. The local people are in fact organized in development associations that do not have planning consultants in their employ. The department does not really have sufficient staff whom it can lend to them either. These plans are drawn up with their co-operation, but of course they do not have the professional people in their employ who can undertake planning, as the town councils of Cape Town, Durban, or the provincial authorities have for example. We are trying very hard now to find a method of organizing local participation in the drawing up of these regional plans. As soon as we have clarified this matter, I shall make an announcement in this regard. I expect that we will in fact find some method or other of involving the local people in the drawing up of these regional plans via their development associations.

To the hon. member for Somerset East, who referred to Port Elizabeth, I just want to say that the guide plan for Port Elizabeth, as I said on Friday, is almost ready. As far as this plan is concerned of course the department has for a few years been aware of the possible development of St. Croix. At the moment we still have very little information, so far we only have a decision. But as soon as this decision is put into effect and we hear about other possible settlements, we shall plan this St. Croix section as well so that it can be incorporated fully with our overall guide plan for Port Elizabeth.

†The hon. member for East London City spoke about development at East London, Berlin and King William’s Town. He stressed the very urgent need for economic development in that area. I can only say that I entirely agree with the hon. member. I have personally gone out of my way during these last few years to plead the cause of that area. There are certain problems in that area. One is a population problem, the problem of numbers of people looking for jobs. Another problem is that that area is rather poor in regard to natural resources. Furthermore that area is very far removed from the big markets in South Africa. Therefore it has not been easy to stimulate and spark off development in that area. We have really done our best; I have the figures here. I can quote them but I will not detain the Committee. I can quote figures to show the huge amounts of money the Government has invested there. It has invested in the infrastructure, and it has invested through the Industrial Development Corporation taking a share in manufacturing concerns established there, etc. The Government has done its best. I think it is not enough; we must do even more. I realize the urgency of the position.

The hon. member has, as far as I can remember, stressed the way in which things are being done in the Transkei and the Ciskei by the XDC, which is true. I would like to say that I appreciate very much the efforts of the XDC and its personnel. I think they are doing a good job of work for the area as such. I want to give them all due praise. The hon. member has asked me whether, if we could have a corporation on those lines in the White area adjoining the Transkei and the Ciskei, we would not achieve more success. I am not so sure about that. In the first place, it will not be practical to have a corporation for every area in our country. It would mean an overlapping of manpower and could create a measure of inefficiency. I think that the set-up we have, where our department designates growth points in that area and the IDC is actively interested in the area, where the Decentralization Board with its chairman, as well as the City Council of East London, the hon. member for East London City and other representatives from that area are doing a good job, is still the best we can do. I want to say that I have an ally in him, and that we must work for more development in that area.

I now come to the matters raised by the hon. member for Walmer in connection with Wavecrest. The hon. member for Walmer has had three years—I think it could be two—in which he had the fullest opportunity of raising the Wavecrest issue in the Cape Provincial Council.

No, that is not correct.

It must have been two and a half years.

The report only came out in February of this year.

We have been reading about these matters in the newspapers, I would not say ad nauseum, but for a long time now. He has had the fullest opportunity to raise this matter and he had assistance over there as well. If the hon. member has not been satisfied in this regard, it is not my fault. I want to tell the hon. member that I am not prepared to put the province in the dock before this Committee. The province is not here to defend itself. Why should I do a thing like that? No reasonable person can expect that of me.

You should find out more about it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that a minority report was drafted and presented to the Administrator and that the Administrator failed to produce that minority report?

Mr. Chairman, I shall in due course deal with the question of the minority report. Was the hon. member for Wynberg not present here on Friday when the hon. member for Walmer raised this matter of the minority report? The hon. member for Walmer made that same point. I shall deal with this matter in due course. I say that I am not prepared to put the province in the dock here as an accused without their being here to defend themselves.

Well, then take them into your office.

The hon. member for Walmer asked me eight questions herein the House during the course of this session in connection with Wavecrest. However, when he got up to speak about Wavecrest he did not do so in relation to any of the replies which I gave him. He went out and he filled his little suitcase in Wale Street and then he came back here and unpacked it.

That is nonsense; you are talking absolute nonsense.

The hon. member talks about the minority report and about the recommendations of the officials of the Province. That is why I say he collected all his information in Wale Street. Then he came along and unpacked it here. Let me go further. I cannot say whether the hon. member’s statements are correct. I do not know the Wavecrest story. His may quite well be a one-sided version of the whole affair.

Here is the minority report.

Speaking about the minority report, let me say this. The hon. member was invited by the Administrator of the Cape to publish his minority report. I want to know from the hon. member why he did not publish it? The Administrator invited him to publish it.

It was handed to him to Table. He did not Table it.

The hon. member has an open invitation to do so to this very day. The hon. member complained about the minority report not having seen the light of day. To this day he has an open invitation to publish that minority report, and he has not done so.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister publish a minority report that had not been Tabled under privilege?

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is in the minority report which precludes the hon. member from publishing it. The hon. member is a lawyer. Perhaps he has some suspicion that it might not be too safe for him to publish it.

The hon. the Minister knows what he should be telling us here.

I am just talking about this story.

You are running away from it like an athlete.

I am not going into this question because it was not necessary for me to study it. The hon. member even had the offer of a commission to be appointed, an official commission to be appointed, if he would provide the names of the people he suspected of underhand activities. He has not however availed himself of that opportunity either.

I asked for a commission.

That was a political move thought up by the Minister of Defence.

Really, the hon. member must not come along to this House in the next two or three or four years and ask us to spend time on this Wavecrest matter. The hon. member asked me a question to which I want to reply. We have been consulted about Wavecrest. My department was consulted. Actually my delegate was consulted and what my delegate says or does goes for me because he was my delegate. He was asked whether Wavecrest could be developed for the White group and he said “Yes” because it is in a White group area. That is the answer to that question. Sir, I personally do not know what is troubling the hon. member. Surely this is not the first big project that the Cape Provincial Administration has approved.

One of four applications by the same applicant.

That may be so, but this also applies to other applicants whose applications to undertake big projects have also been approved, but the hon. member does not complain about those projects. Why not? Perhaps because he approves of their political philosophy.

Now you are talking nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now dealt with all the matters raised here by hon. members in connection with the question of physical planning. I want to go on now to deal with matters concerning the environment.

Would the hon. the Minister reply to the question which I put in regard to energy planning?

When I rose a moment ago, the hon. member had not yet returned to the House. I said that I was going to deal with physical planning first, after that with conservation of the environment, and then after that with energy.

Sir, I am now proceeding to deal with matters concerning the environment, pursuant to the Wavecrest matter. I shall also, at the same time, say a few words about Sandy Bay and other similar projects.

Sir, in the South Western Districts, along the coast, in that wonderful area of South Africa, we have a number of vleis; in other areas we have lagoons and river mouths. The hon. member for Benoni, I think, said that we have so many committees. Sir, I am very proud of the work this department is doing. This department is not burdened and crippled by a welter of boards and committees. The department does its work in a well-ordered and proper manner. The Planning Advisory Council is in fact our most important instrument. The Planning Advisory Council is doing very good work; there is no doubt about that. As hon. members know the council is under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Planning. Quite a number of very notable people serve on this council and are doing wonderful work for us there. I just want to mention to you, Sir, who the members of the planning advisory council are: there is for example Mr. Pretorius, who was mentioned here with praise, as vice-chairman; then there are the following members, Mr. Coetzee, the managing director of Iscor, Mr. Dawid de Villiers, general manager of Sasol, Mr. Theron, Secretary for Industries, Mr. Du Plessis, agricultural policy adviser, Prof. Fourie of the University of the Orange Free State, Mr. Kitzhoff, the managing director of the IDC, Mr. Knobel, director of the Parks Board, Prof. Lombard of the University of Pretoria, Mr. Loubser, General Manager of the Railways, Dr. S. M. Naude, scientific adviser, Prof. Page of Stellenbosch, Prof. Potgieter of Potchefstroom, Dr. Riekert, economic adviser, Mr. J. L. Stallabras, adviser on water affairs and Dr. Straszacker, chairman of Escom. Sir, this erudite group of people hold regular discussions in regard to our planning and our environment, but when they have adopted a resolution in principle on a river mouth or on a vlei, for example, they do not have the time to institute an investigation themselves; they appoint an auxiliary committee to institute the necessary investigations; and in this way an auxiliary committee is appointed for every matter which has to be investigated and we then receive a report, such as this report on river mouths, lagoons and vleis, which I have here in my hand. At its last meeting the planning Advisory Council adopted the following resolutions. The one resolution is that the existing auxiliary committee for river mouths, lagoons and vleis should continue its task on a national basis and not confine its activities only to the Cape. Therefore we are going to do this on a national basis and in this respect this is perhaps my reply to that portion of the speech made by the hon. member for Eshowe. We are going to continue this on a national basis. The second resolution—and this is important—is that the committee should extend its activities further to investigate the coastal areas between the river mouths and in the vicinity of lagoons and vleis as well, in collaboration with the provincial administrations, in order to identify areas which are vulnerable or which are of conservational value, places where development, for example township development, should not be allowed. Sir, this auxiliary committee of the Planning Advisory Council is proceeding with its work. On it is represented all the provinces, the Natal Parks Board and the city councils concerned, and inter alia the Departments of Water Affairs and Tourism, and it then comes forward with a co-ordinated plan which, admittedly, does not yet have a legal basis. It seems to me that I am going to fun out of time, but I still want to discuss the legal aspects. As I have said, the auxiliary committee comes forward with such a plan to the country, and now it is not possible for anyone simply to set a development in motion. It has to be done on the basis of the accepted plan.

As far as this area is concerned—I do not know what hon. member mentioned it—there is this controversial road, the coastal road. I think the hon. members for Smithfield and Benoni mentioned it. We were consulted in regard to that road, and after negotiations, we gave our consent. The National Transport Commission appointed a special committee which will now look into the ecological effects of that road, for example where it traverses the rivers and lakes. For that reason the National Transport Commission has appointed such a committee to look into the matter. I think the engineers are also to an increasing extent taking environmental considerations into account, and I am saying this with all due respect. The National Transport Commission has now appointed a committee and serving on that committee is for example, the CSIR, and Dr. Hey, the chief director of the Nature Conservation Division of the province, and Prof. Allanson of Rhodes. These are the people who are now going to advise the national transport Commission as to where this road should be constructed across the vulnerable areas. I think this is wonderful progress which our department has achieved by bringing together all these disciplines, to watch and to guard so as to achieve the best results.

The first resolution is therefore that this auxiliary committee will extend its task on a national basis to lagoons and vleis in the areas between the coastal areas; and, secondly, they have resolved that an auxiliary committee be established for national mountainous areas to investigate the mountainous areas of the Republic on a national basis, to determine priorities and make recommendations as to how the various mountainous areas can be conserved and utilized in a co-ordinated manner. Here is a report which was drawn up for the Drakensberg Catchment Reserve. Forestry and Water Affairs and the province were represented on this committee, apart from Planning, and Tourism as well. Here we now have a blue-print for the Drakensberg Catchment area. One is not easily going to find the wrong kind of development taking place in this catchment area now, because we have drawn up a plan together, which I think is a very good thing for our country. This is what we are accomplishing now with all our activities. Then there is the second part of the resolution, i.e. that representatives of the following institutions shall be key members of the auxiliary committee, viz. the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, the four provincial administrations and the National Parks Board. They are able to co-opt members. I could also mention that there is a report on its way on the island complex in the Vaal River, which is a unique ecological system. It is something exceptional. We cannot allow it simply to slip out of our hands. We have appointed an auxiliary committee, and I have already seen the report. It is possible that we will also extend this to our other rivers. We are still awaiting a report on vacation towns. The fact of the matter is of course that we should develop our assets. We must make amenities available to the public. One cannot lock up one’s assets in a cupboard so that no one can ever enjoy them. The public have certain lawful claims and those claims must be reconciled to the inevitable necessity that these areas may not be impaired or destroyed. They must be preserved for posterity as well. Consequently we now have an investigation into how and where vacation towns should be established. This is being done in collaboration with the provinces.

The hon. member for Benoni put a question in regard to the cutting off of the Langebaan lagoon. We have discussed this. But I do not know. It will cost a great deal of money if it should ever be decided upon. It is not yet very urgent. However, the entire lagoon matter is being watched very thoroughly by a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Hey. The question of industries, pollution such as atmospheric pollution, from effluent and solid matter will be re-examined. As I shall indicate in a moment, these things are being examined very carefully.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Eshowe in regard to St. Lucia. I think it was a very good thing that he brought up this point. The St. Lucia system is a wonderful system, unique in the world. He can rest assured that that matter is receiving very careful interdepartmental attention. He advocated that we take over the reins, and I shall come to that as well.

The hon. member for Albany again rised the matter of the Bushman River. I really do not know. I did my best. In 1960, when they began there, our department was not yet in existence in any case. This does not mean to say that we should not try to help. At that time still they simply began to build a bridge that way. This applies particularly to certain types of bridges. They merely filled it in and began the construction on top of that. I understand that they no longer adopt that procedure today. What could be removed, was in fact removed. I did my best, and got into touch with the province. I liaised personally with the Administrator and the member of the Executive Committee concerned. They made another attempt and removed what they could. The last letter to me indicated, however, that it was impossible to remove any more of that fill from the river. I cannot say that that is not true. They also said that as from 1960 dams were constructed higher up along the river, and the mouth was no longer being opened by the strong flow of the river as it once used to be.

That is an excuse.

In any case, I want to assure the hon. member that if we are able to assist in any way, we will not be indifferent to this matter, we shall do so. I shall make a note of this, but I can assure the hon. member that I did what I could. Nevertheless, I shall discuss this again.

The hon. member also referred to Grahamstown and asked whether it is also a growth point. Grahamstown is not on the list of growth points, but it is a place which, in terms of the resolution of the Decentralization Board, may receive the benefits which are allotted to growth points on the basis of the employment of Bantu and Coloured labour in industries there. Therefore, Grahamstown can receive the benefits, but the question is whether it is going to get the industries. That is the major problem.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can an industrialist who wants to establish himself there, receive the benefits if he employs Bantu who are living in Grahamstown?

The department that implements this and under which the Decentralization Board falls, is the Department of Economic Affairs. It would not be entirely correct of me to speak for another department. Until such time as the development at Komiteesdrif has been completed, I am prepared to say that they will receive such benefits. With that I think I have replied to all the questions put by the hon. member for Albany.

The hon. members for Bryanston and Pinelands raised a matter on Friday, and I think I am interpreting it correctly when I say that it concerns one department which embraces all aspects of the environment. It was the hon. member for Pinelands in particular who raised this aspect, while the hon. member for Bryanston virtually took it further by saying that such a discipline should be the chief discipline above all the others. The environment must be preserved, and as the hon. members for Bryanston and Pinelands said, we are all concerned with its conservation. We as individuals, the city councils, the provinces, the Government departments, which have to develop it, the people who have to build the roads, the farmers active in agriculture, those establishing forest plantations, those responsible for the damming up of water, those who are responsible for the development of vacation towns—all are responsible for it. Nothing which is done does not have a bearing on the environment. I do not think it is the task of a Department of the Environment to do everything, for that would be quite impossible. It would be impossible, for where should one stop? Simply take the matter of oil pollution at sea. The combating of such pollution is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. Hon. members sitting in this House today must admit that no department could manage it better than the Department of Transport has done so up to now. Difficult situations crop up, but nevertheless they are managing to do this very well indeed, for they are the people who have a liaison with the harbours, who have the patrol boats, the tugs, the storage space for the machinery and the chemical substances which have to be sprayed. They have better control over incoming ships and they can keep an eye on things far better than we can. Why should we proceed to build up an entire administrative machine to do that work. I am convinced that a Department of the Environment would not be able to do it any better. Let us consider water pollution. I maintain that that department in South Africa which stores the water and which apportions the water should also be able to say on what conditions the water may be apportioned. It should then ensure that those conditions are complied with, for example it should see what the water looks like once it has been used and whether it can be reused. It should see to what an extent the used water which is released into the rivers has been polluted, and it should see to what an extent the water which drains away into the soil at a specific place, to be taken up again in the subterranean streams, has been polluted. As the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said the other day, I think that his department is, within limits, doing its utmost. I do not think that another department would really be able to perform that task more satisfactorily. In England, for example, all local authorities fall under the Department of the Environment. In the case of South Africa we shall have to transfer all the local authorities of the provinces to us, and I do not think we are able to do so. Just consider a matter such as garbage removal. The provinces have a task to perform in the sphere of the environment. When the hon. member for Eshowe mentioned the Natal Provincial Administration there was a chorus of “hear, hears”. The Provincial Administration of Natal is doing good work. The Provincial Administration of the Cape is also doing excellent work. Should we deprive them of functions such as the removal of garbage from our cities, and combine it all under one department? It is impossible for one department to deal with all these matters. We do not think there Should be an umbrella department which should do everything, but we do think there should be an umbrella department which co-ordinates everything. In this regard we agree with hon. members on the opposite side. Such a department should keep an eye on everything; it should be a watch-dog and it should ensure that every aspect of the environment, be it positive or negative, be it conservation or pollution, is well cared for statutorily and administratively. I want to tell the hon. members that we do in fact have a Department of the Environment; what are they then advocating? We do not have a separate ministry of the environment, but we do indeed have a Department of the Environment.

The hon. member for Pinelands said on Friday that planning and the environment were inseparable. I maintain that they are veritable twin brothers; good advance planning ensures that one’s environment is preserved more satisfactorily; weak planning or no planning gives rise to the kind of development which destroys the environment. It should always be borne in mind that this is a young department which has only been operating for three to three and a half years. Although there is one ministry and one departmental head, the department is expanding in the lower echelons. In respect of physical planning we have the Planning Advisory Council, and in respect of the environment we have the South African Committee for Environmental Conservation. I could just tell hon. members who serve on the South African Committee for Environmental Conservation. The chairman is the departmental head of the Department of Planning and the Environment. The other departments who have representation on this committee through the departmental heads are the Departments of Labour, Bantu Administration and Development, Forestry, Community Development, Health, Agricultural Technical Services, Mines, Industries, Transport and Water Affairs. The provincial administrations of the Cape, Natal, Orange Free State, Transvaal and South-West Africa, and the CSIR, also have representation on this committee. This South African Committee for Environmental Conservation considers all aspects of environmental conservation. This body then advises me, and I in turn have a Cabinet committee which assists me where necessary. Consequently I do not think that we need establish a new department. I honestly think that the present dispensation works well, and that we should give it a chance. I do not think we would do any better by establishing a different setup now.

Since one discusses the environment to such an extent now, and so frequently reads pessimistic articles in the newspapers, we must at least never close our eyes to what is beautiful. There is still a great deal which is beautiful in our country. During the past few weeks we have had wonderful flower shows in the Boland. We have nature gardens which the provinces are establishing. We read recently about the South African Nature Institute which is establishing nature parks in the Karoo. We have our beautiful game reserves, the Kruger National Park and others. We have our wonderful wild flowers in Namaqualand and elsewhere. People are going out of their way, everywhere in South Africa, to preserve nature. In the past year or two a consciousness of our environment has developed among the public, both in the cities and in the rural areas, a consciousness for which we who are sitting here today can only be grateful. I want to express my thanks to the Press, the radio, the schools, the youth associations and all voluntary organizations throughout South Africa for what they have done to make our people aware of the planning and the conservation of the environment. I mention, to conclude this aspect, that there are more than a hundred voluntary bodies in South Africa, for example the Table Mountain Conservation Board, the Kirstenbosch Board, the Junior Chambers of Commerce, Jaycees, bodies in Natal, etc., who have written to us asking in what way they could be of assistance. We have brought them all together now on the Habitat Council, which has also been given representation on the S.A. Committee for Environmental Conservation. We are grateful for this co-ordinated effort throughout South Africa, for our work has produced many results.

Mention was also made here of the statutory powers of the department. I am not going to spend much time on this matter today. I just want to mention that when we draw up a plan today, we can count on the necessary co-operation in implementing it. We are blamed for many things. In this way there is, for example, the Sandy Bay affair. It was said in the newspapers, and people also wrote to me, that we should stop the development there. We cannot do so, even if we wanted to. I am of course not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case now. The relevant section of the Physical Planning Act in terms of which we would have been able to take action, provides that if a planning scheme is promulgated in an area or if a developer has to obtain consent in terms of another Act or ordinance, the department is excluded. As far as Sandy Bay is concerned, I can only say by way of illustration that that area has been incorporated by the Cape Divisional Council into a general planning scheme. According to the provisions of the Act we are therefore excluded, and can do nothing about it. I have already said that the provinces consult us from time to time in regard to township development. However, they need not accept our advice. I have now written to the Administrators informing them that when a dispute arises between officials in regard to such a matter I am asking them to settle this matter on the highest level.

The last matter I want to deal with, is the question of a separate Department of Energy, which was proposed by the hon. member for Von Bradis. A separate Ministry of Energy has been established in a few countries, but we have not done so. We have approached this question of energy in much the same way as the matter of conservation. There are many raw materials, which the hon. member also mentions, involved in the generation of energy. I am thinking for example of coal, uranium, the provision of electricity and the processing of oil and its products. It is felt that all this information should be brought together in one central Government body and that this body should make use of the best forces available in the sphere of energy. I just want to mention briefly to the Committee who the persons are who are serving on the Energy Policy Committee. The Chairman is the Secretary for Planning. Serving on this committee then are Mr. D. P. de Villiers, managing director of Sasol, Mr. B. G. Fourie, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. J. G. H. Loubser, General Manager of the S.A. Railways and Harbours, Dr. P. J. Riekert, economic adviser to the Prime Minister, Dr. A. J. A. Roux, Director-General of the Atomic Energy Board, Mr. Steyn, the Secretary for Commerce, Dr. Straszacker, Chairman of Escom, Mr. Theron, Secretary for Industries and Mr. Uys, the Secretary for Mines. It is the task of this committee to research our energy resources in their entirety and to see what we have. They must then determine our energy needs, for various sectors, for the present, the short-term future, for the middle term and for the long-term. They have to establish how we should deal with our energy resources in South Africa from time to time. I do not think that a department could do it any differently or any better. I think it is right that the entire matter of coal exploitation should remain with the Department of Mines. In addition I also think that it is right that the exploitation and enrichment of uranium should continue to fall under that department. The same applies in respect of the other energy resources and the relevant departments controlling them. Represented on this Energy Committee are the producers, the importers and the consumers of energy. Our department controls the research unit with Dr. David Kotzé in charge, a person who obtained his doctor’s degree in this field. I think the hon. member knows about his work. He is a person who worked for the major petrol companies and is still in demand among them today. In our department he is now in charge of this, one could almost call it, sub-department of energy affairs. I think we should give this undertaking a chance. On the first opportunity which presented itself, the committee and the Cabinet Committee held very serious deliberations on the question of coal exports. We obtained expert evidence, and issued a statement 14 days ago to which we have received a no unfavourable reaction whatsoever. That, then, is all I want to say in respect of energy.

I just want to say that the hon. member for Hillbrow stated his policy at the outset, and that I cannot fault it to any great extent, except that he said that there should be no ideological considerations. When the hon. member for East London City praised the Xhosa Development Company to such an extent, I wondered whether he did not perhaps think that this was also ideology. When he said that we should make special efforts in Berlin, I thought that that could perhaps also be ideology. Nevertheless, the hon. Opposition views the matter in more or less the same way we do; only they say that ideological considerations should not be taken into account.

The matter of statistics was not discussed here, but I think I am speaking on behalf of the entire Committee when I say that we have appreciation for the work done by the Department of Statistics, without which no modern, industrialized State such as we are, can plan and progress. I should like to place on record my appreciation of them, as well as of the officials of the Department of Planning. We view our task very simply: We are serving South Africa in all respects. We are trying to plan in advance in such a way in respect of the land our country has at its disposal, which is becoming scarce, and in respect of the environment and energy sources that, when we are no longer there, we will at least—since there are so many dire prognostications in the world on population growth and environment which will be destroyed—leave to the generations who come after us a habitable South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I only have four minutes at my disposal, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am shocked at his attitude towards the Wavecrest issue. I think he should be ashamed of himself.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to discuss the whole Wavecrest issue, because that is a matter for the Provincial Administration of the Cape.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it was allowed to be discussed here.

I had nothing to do with that. I was not in the Chair at the time.

But surely, Sir, it does not matter who was in the Chair. The Chair has felt this to be in order and it is therefore in order.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, arising out of your ruling, I may mention that the hon. the Minister said that he had answered the question by saying that every township application is lodged …

The hon. the Minister said himself that his department had nothing to do with this matter.

The hon. the Minister said he was not prepared to deal with the matter; yet he is responsible for the Department of Planning. I think this is an irresponsible attitude and I believe the matter was dealt with in a most unsatisfactory manner. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in my view, he ran like a champion athlete from every issue that was raised. According to what he said, one can only assume that he did not want to embarrass the Executive Committee of the Cape Provincial Council. I believe it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to read the minority report very carefully and to react to it.

Order! The hon. member must not discuss all these details. This Committee has nothing to do with the report of the provincial administration.

Sir, I accept your ruling. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that, when one considers the coastline of South Africa as a whole, one has to think in terms of the water requirements of coastal resorts. One finds that in this particular application of Wavecrest there were no technical reports in the file which showed that there was sufficient water for 3 700 plots. One even found that the chairman of the Townships Board who, I presume, has close liaison with the hon. the Minister, said that if the approval was granted because of false information then one would find that one would perhaps have to remove the application and review it again in the sense that it would have to be cancelled as it could have been granted under false pretences. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in regard to town planning that, as he is well aware, the Townships Board assists and refers matters to the department. I want him to know that in this particular application the entire Townships Board of the Cape Province was unanimous in opposing this application. It was only prepared to grant the application in a limited form. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the effect of the granting of this application meant that between the hon. the Minister and the Executive Committee of the Cape Province they have actually ruined our Cape coastline. Throughout the Cape Province there are something like 53 800 coastal plots of which 37 400 are undeveloped. In Jeffreys Bay there are 5 270 plots alone. In the light of these figures, the hon. the Minister can see that there was no earthly reason for granting these 3 700 plots in this particular application. I may mention—I think that the hon. the Minister may have had a say in it—that as a result of the granting of this particular application there was a complete collapse of policy in the province. The result was that the hon. the Administrator had to announce that no applications for coastal resorts away from existing growth points could be entertained until 1975. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he played a leading part in regard to this particular announcement.

I believe that the hon. the Minister must look at the minority report. I on my part am prepared to give him whatever assistance I can. [Time expired.]

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28, Loan Vote B and S.W.A. Vote No. 15.—“Public Works”:

Mr. Chairman, we are now embarking on the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, a portfolio which embraces Government projects having an estimated expenditure of R635 million. The hon. the Minister is asking us today to vote him an amount of R72 million on Loan Account and an amount of R68 million on Revenue Account, a total of R140 million. There is nothing very startling in these estimates. There is the usual run of those R50 token sums simply to have the particular project included on the estimates. We have discussed these matters with the hon. the Minister year after year. There is one item on these estimates which is fairly startling and that is an increase of R8 million in regard to the amount voted for salaries and wages, an increase which I believe shows a remarkable tendency within this department. Because of this fact, I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister the functions of his department and put to him certain suggestions on behalf of my party for the continued efficient running of his department.

I believe that the functions of his department are particularly the planning and the provision of adequate accommodation and suitable furniture, fittings and equipment for all State departments and, of course, with that, the maintenance of such premises and of such furniture, fittings and equipment for such departments. The hon. the Minister seems to be having more and more difficulty in carrying out these functions through his department because he is putting more and more out to private tender and making greater use of private professional bodies in regard to these matters. I find from the report that for the last three years—these are the three years up to the 1972-’73 financial year—his department undertook only 307 different jobs totalling R41,8 million whereas 225 jobs were put out to private architects totalling R69,9 million. From this we can see that the balance has shifted. I must, however, admit that in the financial year 1972-’73 the pendulum seemed to be swinging the other way.

In each of the reports of his department over the past three years in particular, reference has been made to the shortage of staff, particularly professional staff, and the difficulties that the hon. the Minister is experiencing in retaining the services of professional staff and in carrying out the functions allotted to him. Sir, we believe—and this is a suggestion which I want to make to the hon. the Minister in all serious ness—that the time has come when his department has got to cease to be an actual doing department; that it should become purely a planning and supervisory department. We believe that because of the shortage of staff, particularly the shortage of professional and trained artisan staff and because this department is competing for staff with the building industry in particular throughout the Republic, the department should phase out its building operations and its maintenance work, not only the maintenance of buildings but also the maintenance of equipment and furniture. We believe that the functions of this department should be purely of an expert supervisory nature. It should do the planning and then have the work done on a contractual basis after calling for tenders from the private sector. Its duties should be purely of a supervisory nature. To this end we believe that the Minister should have in his department a very much smaller professional establishment, an establishment of experts, as we have said, and we believe that such experts must be separated from the control of the Public Service Commission. Sir, when we look at the latest report of the Secretary for Public Works, we find that reference is made here again to the fact that he is unable to retain his professional staff because of the poaching which takes place from the public sector. That is in essence what the Secretary says. He goes on to say that this state of affairs certainly serves as a warning and he then goes on to deal with a different subject, but I believe that this should serve as a warning to the hon. the Minister that under prevailing circumstances he will not be able to continue in his department as he has done in the past. We suggest to him that in this way he will be able to overcome his difficulties. Sir, we believe that this could lead to a more efficient utilization of public funds. The small team of experts which the hon. the Minister must retain in his service must be true experts and true supervisors who will not allow the private sector to pull the wool over their eyes, as happens to many of his officials today; and I am not blaming those officials because they are subjected to pressure. Sir, if you look at the report of the Secretary for the department, you will find that reference is made there to the fact that he is unable to supervise wholly all the work that is put out to private tender, and that is why he has suggested that perhaps the time has come when they should deal only with consultants who have proved their integrity and who would require the minimum of supervision by the department. I believe that that is a weakness in the department and. I do not think that we should allow the department to continue along those lines. I believe that we must ensure that there is effective supervision because public funds are being expended here and you need a team of experts to do this supervisory work. Sir, why do I suggest that they should be removed from the control of the Public Service Commission? I suggest this so that they can be paid higher salaries; so that the Minister will be able to offer them conditions of service which will ensure that they remain in the service of the department. We want only the best in the department and we want to make sure that they will be experts who will be able to exercise effective and adequate supervision. Their functions, of course, will be mainly planning and supervisory.

Sir, there is one other major aspect of this change which we are suggesting today which must be considered and that is the question of tenders. Obviously all work would have to be put out to tender, and I do not believe that we should have the dual control of the hon. the Minister’s department and of the State Tender Board. For that reason I would suggest that he should consider establishing within his department a tender board which would call for and accept tenders. As I have said, the actual physical building, repair and maintenance work that is presently being done by his department should be phased out. Sir, there are other functions of his department, particularly the function of jurisdiction over the professional bodies which control the architects and the quantity surveyors. I am particularly glad to see in the report that his department is continuing to play a leading role in the affairs of the Building and Construction Advisory Council and that it is in constant touch with the Building Industries Federation. In this respect also we believe that his department has a role to play within the building industry, a very important role and a role of which we have not really had much evidence in the last few years. That is that we believe that the department should be a balancing factor within the building industry. In times of hardship for the building industry, when that industry finds itself in the doldrums because there is insufficient work to keep it going, this Minister and the Government should stimulate the industry by undertaking Government building. But I believe also that in the same way that the Secretary complains of the poaching of professional staff by the private sector, this Minister must not compete with the private sector for the services of the building industry, as has happened during the last few years when the building industry faced a boom, not only a boom in the private sector but also in the public sector, in that his department embarked on large and numerous enterprises at a time when the building industry was already hard pressed to supply the needs of South Africa. I believe that this small team of experts which I feel he should develop in his department should also keep fully aware of this aspect, and that they could act as a balancing factor for the whole of the building industry.

Sir, to begin with I should like to congratulate the Department of Public Works today on the way in which it performs its wide-ranging and important task. If we consider that this department has a very wide responsibility with regard to the construction of Government buildings, the maintenance of those buildings, the letting and hiring of buildings, and the provision and maintenance of the buildings for our embassies and consulates abroad, then I think that we can testify with appreciation and a great deal of pride to the good work done by this department. Sir, on page 4 of the department’s report for the year ended 31 March 1973, which I have before me, I read inter alia the following under the heading “Minor works, repair and maintenance services”—

That. Sir, is in itself an enormous task and I think that possibly a little more tolerance could sometimes be displayed by us as Members of Parliament and by the public at large when some of our requests are not always complied with soon enough. But apart from this wide-ranging task of maintaining the existing buildings and their office furniture, there is still a continuous demand for new accommodation, owing to the expansion of State activities. As a result the problem faced by the Department of Public Works is really a twofold one. In the first place there is the provision of new accommodation, and in the second place, there is the improvement of existing accommodation. By improving existing accommodation, I do not have in mind that this will only be for the convenience of the public, but that it will also be conducive to the convenience and pleasant working conditions of our officials in those buildings.

As far as the new buildings are concerned, the convenience of the public and the working conditions of the officials are in fact taken thoroughly into account, and I think that that is how it should be. But as far as existing accommodation in the older buildings is concerned, I want to concede that perhaps it is not always effective and that it is sometimes even inadequate. But I wonder whether our people are not perhaps becoming too obsessed with the idea of new, modern buildings, as if those new, modern buildings were supposedly the only norm for efficiency. Is it not perhaps the case that the easy way out is always sought, namely the demolition of one building and the erection of another in its place? Is one not too quick to talk about new buildings for the sake of prestige?

I am sorry to say this, but in my opinion the private sector sets us a very poor example in this regard, because they sometimes recklessly demolish serviceable and solid buildings purely for the sake of prestige. It seems to me as if some of these companies have too much money and as a result they construct prestige buildings. When I talk about old Government buildings then I do not have dilapidated old buildings in mind, but buildings that are many years old but which nevertheless are very solid structures. There are many Government buildings which are still solid and stand on large and adequate grounds, but which now no longer comply with all the requirements. However they can be made attractive by means of the necessary alterations to create the necessary facilities for the public and pleasant working conditions for the officials. The best example I can think of is this very parliamentary building. The old wing was completed as far back as 1885 and this middle part, of which this debating chamber forms part, as far back as 1910. If we were to think in terms of years, I wonder whether there would be anyone who would dare to say that this building must be demolished and must make way for a more modern building, unless, of course, it was decided to move Parliament to Boksburg!

By restoring our old buildings to comply with changed requirements, a great deal of expense can be saved. Much of the pressure on our overloaded building industry could be relieved in this way. Apart from that, the cultural and historical value of many of these old buildings could then be preserved.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about the staff shortage. It is a fact—and we must accept it as such—that bearing in mind the steadily growing demand, there will always be a shortage of staff. It will possibly become even worse in the future. That is why I am particularly pleased that in the foreword to the report, mention is made of the fact that the department will be more selective in engaging private consultants. We do not want to standardize entirely, but I wonder whether it would be such a terrible sin if a post office at Ermelo were to be similar in appearance to a post office at Welkom?

If the post offices comply with certain requirements and have the necessary facilities for the public, and there are pleasant working conditions for the officials, what is wrong with having two or more buildings with the same appearance? Whereas there are sometimes architects who experiment with buildings, something that leads to inefficiency and to the repetition of mistakes made at the planning stage, these at least could be eliminated. I believe that this will give rise to the construction of more efficient buildings and that expense can be saved if we make use of people who can erect buildings in duplicate in various towns.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg has dealt with the position of older buildings and I should like to support him to a certain extent. I believe that there are some very magnificent buildings owned by the Government or provincial administrations throughout South Africa which are architecturally of some significance and which are part of the history of South Africa. Where it is possible that an older building can be saved, renovated or slightly altered internally, such a building should be preserved. I think particularly of the old town hall in Durban which is now used as a general post office. This building is an old historical building which is of architectural significance and blends with the atmosphere of the Durban Civic Centre. For that reason it is pleasing to see that the renovation and restoration of that building is presently being undertaken.

I know that the Department of Public Works does in most circumstances, where major repairs are required, allocate such work to private enterprise. In this regard I should like to support the hon. member for Pietermarizburg South who indicated the necessity to work with private enterprise in this regard. Under subhead L, “General repair services”, of the Vote which is before us. I notice that while an amount of R6 912 000 was voted for 1973-’74, an amount of R9 177 000 is being voted for 1974-’75. This means an increase of almost two and a quarter million for general repair services only. I should like the hon. the Minister to give an indication of the reason for such a large increase in the general repair services, particularly in view of the fact that the major repair services which are carried out are rendered by contractors in the private sector.

There are other aspects of the department to which I believe the hon. the Minister should give further attention. I mentioned the fact that there are some magnificent buildings, particularly some older Government buildings, which can be preserved. If they become inadequate in certain respects, alterations can be undertaken to ensure that the building remains in use. The costly and destructive practice of demolishing of a building which can still be used, can thus be avoided. By doing this a large sum of money can be saved and be used for the alteration of such a building rather than for the complete demolition and replacement thereof. The availability of suitable land is another very severe problem when renewals are undertaken on major projects.

When new buildings are built for the Government, I believe that due consideration must be given to ensure that the building does not look like some sort of Government institution; that it is designed so as to make it as pleasing as possible architecturally and that it is a credit to the country and to the Department of Public Works. For that reason I was interested to see on page seven of the latest report of the Secretary for Public Works that the practice of horticulture in the beautifying of these buildings is part of the department’s duties. In addition to that a committee has been established to deal with works of art in Government buildings. I know that this is a controversial subject because the general public with their wide diversity of opinion often differ as to whether something really is a work of art or not.

In my view works of art on certain buildings certainly act as an embellishment of that Government building and can perhaps give it character. At the building of the Department of Social Welfare in Pretoira a work of art showing a mother, a child and a father was erected and this work of art signifies the work that is being undertaken by that department. In the Secretary’s report it is stated that the necessary preliminary work is being done with the view to the final constitution of a committee which will consider works of art. It is also stated that this will be a representative committee with representatives from the various provinces who would be nominated for a period of three years and they would be art connoisseurs from those provinces. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give an indication to this Committee today of the progress that is being made in regard to this particular section of his department.

I also wish to refer to other matters concerning Loan Vote B. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South indicated that there is a sum of R72 million to be voted in terms of Loan Vote B. If one refers to the summary of subheads, one sees that subhead 15, “Prisons”, is one of the major items of expenditure. In actual fact, the present total cost of various projects amounts to R122 million for which a sum of R9,75 million has now to be voted. The other subhead I want to refer to, is subhead 16, “Social Welfare and Pensions”, for which an amount of just over R1 million has to be voted. Dealing with the question of prisons, if one looks at Loan Vote B, one can see the tremendous amount of work that has been undertaken at various prisons in various parts of the Republic. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us an assurance that, in the planning of these alterations to and improvements of the prisons, due consideration was had to ensuring the maximum security of these prisons. I think the general public have been alarmed at the increasing number of prisoners who are escaping from prisons in different parts of the country. Since this appears to be one of the major items falling under the responsibility of the hon. the Minister, I hope he can give some assurance to the Committee that due regard is being had to this particular problem so as to ensure that this aspect is fully being taken into account in regard to the improvements and additions that are being carried out at a large number of prisons in various parts of the Republic.

This leads me to the question of the amount to be voted under Loan Vote B for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I see that R120 000 has to be voted for improvements to the Norman House Place of Safety. In this connection, I would also like to refer to the fact that consideration must be given to the design of such places of safety to ensure that the possibility of these young people absconding from these places of safety is reduced to a minimum. There are various aspects in regard to the high incidence of abscondment from such institutions. It is often held that some of these abscondments are the responsibility of the staff which should adopt a stricter attitude. However, it has also come to my notice that the design of many of these places of safety is of such a nature that abscondment becomes a fairly simple matter.

If one looks at figures in regard to the incidence of abscondment from places of safety, one soon sees that this is not something which is merely thought to exist, but that it in fact does exist. A sum of money is also to be voted under Loan Vote B for the Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. Looking at the position of the places of safety for Coloured children, which are State institutions and State-built buildings, one sees that in respect of the five places of safety for Coloured children, accommodating just over 400 children at the present time, in 1972 there were 77 abscondments, in 1973 87 abscondments and in 1974 to date 100 abscondments. Of all those and prior abscondments, 186 have been traced and at the present time 78 persons are still missing from those places of safety.

I believe there is a relationship between this high incidence of abscondment and the design of the places of safety since the design should ensure that these young people are able to be controlled to be kept at these places of safety. Obviously this high degree of abscondment makes the task of rehabilitating and re-educating the persons who are held there more difficult, especially in the case of those persons who are being held there for various offences that they might have committed or who have developed deviate attitudes and who demonstrated behavioural problems. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to ensure that these buildings should be designed to meet their specific needs and to make it more difficult for the people being held there to abscond.

I want to make one final point in regard to this department. According to its report, there has been a deterioration as far as the staff position is concerned, especially professional staff, and that certain steps have been contemplated in regard to the use and employment of private consultants. I notice from the Estimates that there is an increase in the fees that are being paid to these consultants. I notice under “General” that fees to professional and technical outside firms have increased from R2 883 000 to R6 145 000. It would therefore appear that the greater use of professional and technical services of people in the private sector is being utilized, but at the same time it is also indicated that the department is being adversely affected in the undertaking of its duties because of the loss of staff, in many instances to the private sector. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke, inter alia, about old buildings, but actually I want to talk about new buildings, and at this stage, therefore, I shall not follow up on what he said. The hon. member spoke about the role played by art in this department. I want to support the plea made by the hon. member in this regard. However, I want to go further and ask the hon. the Minister to do more to enliven public buildings, if I may use the word “enliven” in this context, by introducing original works of art by South African artists to those buildings on a larger scale. I want to go so far as to plead that at least one competition for our artists should be held annually and that prints of the successful entry should be hung in public buildings. I think that this would also contribute substantially towards bringing the public into closer contact with the works of our artists and so on. Actually, I want to go further and say that even as far as our poets are concerned consideration should be given to hanging neatly framed prints of poems in our public buildings.

To deal with the Vote as such, I note that under item 28 an amount of R178 000 is being budgeted for subsidies in respect of fire brigades. No one will dispute the fact that the fire brigade services of South Africa are going to become one of the most important divisions of civil defence. This R178 000 that is budgeted, is to me a relatively small amount. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be so friendly as to tell the Committee under what circumstances amounts are made available annually for the purpose of placing this matter on a sound basis. In my opinion there are municipalities which are not, perhaps, fully aware of the steps that have to be taken in order to be considered for such a subsidy. If a little more clarity were to be provided in this regard, it may be beneficial for them, too, to take note of this.

In the second place, I want to refer to the amount budgeted for the building of the chanceries in Bonn and Gӧdesberg. Last year, as one of the parliamentary missions, we had the opportunity, through the kindness of our ambassador in Germany, to visit this site, and I can say that in my opinion it is one of the finest investments we could have made, viz. to choose this particular site for the buildings that are being erected there. I want to compliment the department on this.

Coming now to the needs of my constituency—you will realize that this is also an opportunity to make representations in respect of the needs that exist there—I want to say that one sometimes becomes a little concerned about the department’s approach in regard to making accommodation available to government departments. In my constituency we had the situation that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions had for many years been accommodated in a building which really did credit neither to the department concerned nor to the Department of Public Works. It is only now that steps are being taken to transfer this department to a better building. I say that I was not happy with their approach, particularly in regard to the policy followed in respect of rent. We are living in the year 1974 and in my opinion, it is correct to say that if four cents per square foot was paid by a Government department for accommodation twenty years ago, then it may have been in order at that time; but we are living under different circumstances and we cannot remain in those times. We have to adapt ourselves to the prevailing circumstances. I repeat that it is simply not good enough for Government departments to have to be accommodated under such conditions. Here, too, we must display greater vision and ensure that our Government departments are properly housed.

In the same breath, having referred to the position of the Department of Social Welfare there, I want to congratulate the Department on the policy they followed in regard to the accommodation of the Divisional Commissioner of Police and his officials, who are accommodated in a neat, new building, where they certainly have to pay far more rent than the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. This is the kind of thing one wants to see, that departments are accommodated in such buildings. I now want to ask that as far as the future is concerned, the department should really be a little more enlightened in regard to the payment of rent.

In the last instance, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how far the planning of the new technical college at Springs has progressed. This is something for which we have been fighting for years. It was with a great deal of interest that I looked to see whether any reference had been made to this. To my regret, Sir, I see that not even R3 or R1 has been budgeted for the new year. The need there is a very pressing one. We have to turn away students because we are unable to accommodate them. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not attempt to expedite the planning. It is not only the accommodation of the college as such that is involved here; what is also involved is provision for the accommodation of the students, men and women. There is not enough accommodation in the whole of Springs for this purpose. Then, in the same breath, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, when temporary buildings have to be used, the construction of those temporary buildings could not be expedited too. It sometimes takes a year or longer after the allocation has been made, for that building to be erected. In the mean time it has not been possible to meet the demands arising from other circumstances and for which accommodation is not available. As far as the technical colleges and the hostels are concerned, I say that it is extremely important that we should have clarity on this matter and, as far as the temporary buildings are concerned, that the rate at which they are provided should be speeded up.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs referred to the money that is being spent on fire services. I wonder whether he is worried about the fire that occurred in the offices of the Department of the Interior in Pretoria, where they had no fire escapes. The hon. member also mentioned the chancellory at Bonn. I agree that the chancellories in Bonn and in Paris are very prestigious buildings but when one looks at the amount that is going to be spent on these buildings—R20 million—one wonders whether they are really going to be worth that amount in the end. If the present chancellories are supposed to be an advertisement for South Africa, they are certainly not doing very well because we seem to be dropping all the time in the estimation of the rest of the world.

But the estimates keep going up!

Building costs keep on going up. This is what I want to discuss. All costs are going up today but I do not think that there is any other cost that is rising as quickly as building costs are. When we think that ten years ago one could build a house for R3 per sq. ft., one realizes that today one is very fortunate if one can build a house for R12 a sq. ft. One wonders to what extent the cost of the construction of public buildings will increase. When one considers how much is being spent on prestigious buildings in South Africa, one wonders whether we have our priorities right. There is no doubt about it that we in South Africa must spend more on buildings than many other countries do because of the large backlog of housing that it is necessary for us to overhaul here in South Africa. I do not think it is right that we should try to compete with developed countries overseas, and particularly in Europe, by trying to erect more prestigious buildings than they do either there or here when we are still a developing country. I wonder whether we are not spending too much on finishes and on unnecessary space. Some of the buildings that are being erected are very fine architectural works. However, I feel that a lot of unnecessary work is being put into them and a lot of space is being wasted. I think that this is something we must consider.

The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about old buildings. He referred to the good old buildings that are being pulled down. This is our whole problem. Fifty years ago a building was erected at a very reasonable price. We were able to use the best finishes with the best workmen and to construct a very good building at a very competitive price. This is no longer possible today. The best finishes and the best workmen today cost the earth. The hon. member also asked whether old buildings could not be altered instead of pulling them down and constructing new buildings. I think that most people who are involved with building operations know that in the end alterations cost more than new buildings. In any case, I think that a building is only pulled down by the Public Works Department when it is no longer adaptable to change—when it must come down because of functional requirements. I want to raise this point. Should we not place more emphasis on the functional needs of a particular type of building than on its architectural appearance? In Natal they tried an experiment with hospitals and schools at their new growth points. At Ladysmith and Newcastle and recently at Richards Bay they have concentrated on modular construction. This is the type of construction where all the parts are virtually the same and are fitted together. This scheme has worked very well and they have been able to erect the buildings in record time at a fairly reasonable price. I am not suggesting that all Government buildings be modular buildings, but there are certain buildings which lend themselves to modular construction. I am also not suggesting that all buildings should look exactly the same and that all modular buildings should look like a lot of boxes put together; that is not necessary; they can be made to look different but, Mr. Chairman, is it really necessary that a hospital, for instance, should look like an opera house or like a public library when it is finished. What is wrong with a hospital looking like a hospital, or a post office looking like a post office?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has spoken about work being given out to contractors. I see that this is being done. I think I am correct in saying that this year work to the value of R6 145 000 has been given out to contractors as against R2 283 000 last year. There has been an increase of over 200% in this kind of specialist work that is put out to tender. I think this is a very healthy sign, but I hope that the department in giving this work to contractors will emphasize that these buildings are required to serve a functional purpose and that it is not necessary for them to have any frills.

Sir, the other matter that I would like to speak about is the servicing of public buildings. I notice in Items K and L that provision is being made for an increase of about 30% in the money to be spent on services. The total amount under those two items for services and repairs is over R12 million. Sir, anybody who has had anything to do with PWD buildings, hospitals or post offices knows that the service that one gets from the PWD is not always the best. Here in this House as a member of Parliament I have had the unhappy experience of trying to get one of my lockers in my own office repaired; I have been here for two months now and it has still not yet been repaired. This is the sort of service that one gets from the PWD. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if more of this work cannot be given out to contractors. I doubt if it is worth while to keep on a full staff—an artisan staff, a clerical staff and a supervisory staff and transport, machinery, tools and a huge stock of spares—for all the public buildings in an area when this work could be farmed out. You would then have none of these overhead costs. I am speaking from experience, Mr. Chairman, because I was concerned with the Welkom goldfields right from the start and I know that the mining companies, which have thousands of houses and numerous offices under their control, had the same problem. They first tried to service their own houses and their own offices, but eventually this work was given out to approved contractors, who signed a contract for a specified period of perhaps a year or more. Before they were awarded contracts, they would tender to do certain work at set prices. They would repair or replace certain things at set prices. If anything went wrong with, say, an electrical item or a plumbing item in a house, the clerk of works would be notified and he would then instruct the contractor to go and do the work; he would see that it was done by the next day, and then he would inspect the work before he authorized payment. Sir, they found that this paid them handsomely. I think hon. members on those benches will bear out that Anglo-American does not throw money around.

They throw it around in some places.

They only throw it around during an election campaign. Mr. Chairman, these contractors are very jealous of these contracts awarded to them. It means that they can maintain a workshop, whether they be plumbers or electricians, for their own use and that they can still keep extra staff to do this contractual work. As I say, they are jealous of these contracts because it assures them of a steady income of money which they know they will be paid monthly. They carry the necessary spares and provide the labour, and if any problem arises it us up to them to solve it. The present system, I think, is hopelessly antiquated and the more one can gear oneself to giving all this work out to private contractors, the less trouble one has.

I also want to say something about tendering in the few seconds left to me. The hon. member mentioned here that our policy is that the PWD should have its own tender board. In regard to tendering in South Africa, I think a lot can be done to improve the position. The present system of tendering is archaic and I would recommend to the hon. the Minister that if he establishes a tender board, he should consider some other form of tendering for building work. It has been found that the negotiated tender, for instance, is a far better system than the present system of tendering. [Time expired.]

I agree with the arguments concerning prestige buildings that have been advanced by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. We can agree that we should not demolish serviceable buildings left and right—although I am not aware that this is being done—but only when it is really necessary. But I do not believe I can agree with him about the poor quality of the work done by the Department of Public Works. In my case, in Acacia Park, where I live, they took very speedy action when a problem cropped up, even over a long weekend. I can only refer to the work they do with the greatest appreciation.

Because all the branches of the building industry are, more or less, grouped together in the Department of Public Works, I should like to bring a certain matter to the Minister’s attention today which I trust will enjoy his and his department’s attention to an increasing degree in the future. An acquaintance of mine who is a cripple, a retired attorney, is a man who has been confined to a wheelchair since the Second World War. A year or two ago he sent me an article that appeared in the Sunday Express in which, among other things, the lot of the cripple was discussed. Since I am speaking about the lot of the cripple now, Sir, I want to assure you that I am not going to talk about cripples now, but about the problems they have to contend with in regard to their movements to and inside theatres, bioscopes, hotels, shops, parks and other public places. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister today, in the interests of our handicapped people, even to give serious consideration to introducing legislation, if that should be essential, so as to make provision for the problems of these handicapped people in designing and constructing buildings. According to the report, legislation has already been introduced in Britain, for example, termed the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970. I also gather that there is already an information centre of this kind in Stockholm and that Holland already issues a brochure in this regard. The idea I should very much like to propagate, is for provision to be made in buildings for the physically handicapped to enter and leave those buildings and to be able to move without having to contend with the existing obstacles. One would be amazed to know how many people experience difficulties in our cities. There are for example, the many people who get around in wheel chairs today. Superficially there may not seem to be many of them. There are the many blind people, people who have to struggle with crutches to get to where they want to be, and elderly people who have to struggle along on weak legs and feet, not to mention the many mothers who have to do their shopping with prams and who struggle to get across the streets. For these people it is a nightmare to go to the toilet, for example, in buildings and at stations and airports and so on. I am aware that the National Council for the Care of Cripples is already giving attention to these problems and has recommended certain specifications to architects. There was an article in The Star on 22 March in which certain proposals were made, for example that in every building there should be at least one entrance in which provisions is made for a ramp. A ramp, or “oprit” as it is called in Afrikaans, is nothing but a sloping surface. A ramp of this kind should not slope at a steeper angle than, say, a ratio of one to seven. Then, too, it is proposed that the entrance should be at least 850 mm wide and that there should be handrails 800 mm above floor level. The doors should have a width of at least 800 mm. Buildings, with the exception of blocks of flats, should have at least one toilet on the ground floor, toilets designed in such a way that handicapped persons can use them. The toilet doors, too, must be wide enough and the necessary handrails must also be present. If a building has a lift, toilet facilities can be provided on a higher floor, but in most of the old buildings the toilets are just on the curve of the steps between two floors. The lifts must be wide enough and the buttons inside and out should be so placed that handicapped persons can reach them. In addition, the floors can be indicated on the buttons in braille in order that blind people may also be capable of using the lifts correctly. Providing for physically handicapped, blind and elderly people creates many possibilities for the planner of buildings and streets. The question arises whether a person who has to use a wheel chair, can get into a telephone booth, or whether he can reach the telephone in a sitting position. What is the position in respect of wash-hand basins? In Johannesburg there are already a number of buildings in which provision is made for persons in wheel chairs. There is a hotel group that has equipped at least one room for handicapped persons in each of its hotels. The Jan Smuts Airport, too, already provides for handicapped persons to a certain degree. The international symbol, a yellow chair on a black background, is a welcome indication to every handicapped person that provision for him is made in that building. A sign of this kind also appears on the Hendrik Verwoerd Building on the other side of Parliament Street, as hon. members probably know. In my opinion this is an opportunity for architects, engineers, township developers, town planners, local authorities and even organizations such as the Rapportryers and the Rotarians to press for these facilities to be made available for people who really need them. Our population is growing and this means of course, that we shall have even more handicapped persons in the future. As a result of improved medical services and greater medical knowledge, the life expectancy of human beings has increased, and this means that we shall have a greater number of elderly people in the future. I do not have much time left, but I want to bring this matter specifically to the attention of the hon. the Minister and express the hope that more will be done by his department in this regard than has been done up to now.

I also want to make use of this opportunity to convey my personal thanks, as well as that of my constituency, to the department for the major achievements already attained in Kempton Park as far as public buildings are concerned. I have in mind the Post Office, for example, a unique building which, as far as I know, is the only one of its kind in our country. Hon. members would do well to read about it in the department’s annual report. A photograph of this building appears in the report too. There are columns enclosing the entire perimeter and use has been made of pre-cast terrazzo, aluminium and a special glazing. This is a really outstanding building which should be completed one of these days. I should like to say more about it on another occasion. A great deal of progress has also been made in respect of the preparations for the construction of the police district head office and the magistrate’s offices and I hope that the delays that have occurred will now be something of the past and that the construction of these buildings will begin shortly, because they are of great importance to Kempton Park. The police at Kempton Park and the officials of the Department of Justice have for many years been working under extremely difficult conditions. This is still the case. This building which will be one of the most modern of its kind in the country, will do a great deal to ease the lot of these people.

Mr. Chairman, I must associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Kempton Park on the provision of facilities for the physically handicapped, especially in terms of the design of the buildings to be built. The amount of accord which there seems to be on all sides of the House on this particular Vote is remarkable. I actually find myself in accord with the hon. member for Boksburg, which is …

Surely not!

Yes, I do although I never thought I would find myself in that situation. I find myself in accord with him on the question of the renewal of old buildings in order to meet present day needs rather than to pull them down and start building all over again. Many things need to be done in South Africa today and many buildings have to be built as a matter of urgency. There are probably many employees in the Public Service who are working in inadequate premises or in accommodation which is unsuitable. Obviously everything that has to be built must take its turn on the priorities list which is decided upon by the Government.

What I want to suggest today—and I wish to join my voice with the voices of others who have mentioned this—is that a very close watch should always be kept on the possibility of retaining and renewing what we already have, rather than removing completely and starting all over again. The strain on our capital resources in this country is considerable. Many building materials of one sort or another are in short supply and the building industry is continually under pressure because it cannot provide enough skilled artisans to do the work that has to be done. For that reason it is wasteful in terms of manpower, in terms of material and in terms of money when existing premises which are not totally satisfactory are done away with in order to build completely new buildings to replace them. In many countries of the world today serious attempts are being made to look into the techniques of the remodelling of old buildings because the world is realizing that it cannot afford to waste what is already there since diminishing raw materials must not be wasted. I believe that in many instances we are inclined to design and to build the ideal when quite possibly we can make do with premises which are not entirely ideal but which, with a facelift, would be quite satisfactory. The building industry is over-extended in terms of manpower; our available skilled manpower resources should be used very carefully according to a well-considered plan of priority. Our available capital should obviously be used for the most urgent priorities. There is another good reason why we should seriously consider the retention of some of our old buildings, namely the question of architectural merit. From time to time not only Government buildings but private buildings of considerable aesthetic value are demolished to make way for new buildings of dubious worth in some cases. To give an example of this, we should perhaps look across the road to Marks Building. From time to time we hear hints and rumours that this building will have to come down eventually to make way for a tower block, and thus leave a little more space in front of Parliament. It is all very well in theory but if it is considered I feel we shall be making a very grave mistake indeed. I do not know whether the demolition of this building has in fact been considered, but perhaps I can clarify my argument in talking about this possibility.

The Marks Building has considerable architectural merit, considerable historical significance and it has aesthetic merit. I believe it was designed by Sir Herbert Baker and in many ways it is a very fine building representative of a particular school of architecture which is not seen any more. This solid and lasting form of construction is also something we do not see much of any more. We do not build in the same way because it is too expensive. For historical and aesthetic reasons one could produce very strong arguments in favour of its retention. But this is not all. I do not believe that we can afford to demolish buildings of this nature as long as they can serve a useful purpose. In terms of accommodation it is certainly not ideal by modern standards. The offices are not as airy, cool and as light as, for example, those across the road in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. From this point of view it is certainly not perfect. However, I believe that by imaginative replanning and imaginative alterations an enormous amount can be done to make an old building like that much more habitable. In the olden days one could be sure that the interiors of public buildings were likely to be gloomy places, but times have changed. We know that people work better and more happily in congenial and bright surrounding. I would ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that his department will accept as policy that no building of this kind will be simply demolished unless there are absolutely no alternatives at all. Within the framework of the existing structures the architect and the designer should use their imagination and expertise to improve what we already have. It is always a difficult thing to do to ask an architect to work on somebody else’s original design because architects are creative people who prefer to start something new rather than work on something that is old. However, I believe it is very necessary for them to use their skills—there are very skilled men in that department—in the field of renewal. We cannot really afford to do otherwise. We have to get away from the present approach that demands the rejection and destruction of the old. Our urban areas in many ways have become demolishers’ paradises. Huge buildings are erected which are not expected to have a life of more than 15, 20 or 25 years after which they must be scrapped and replaced by something new. Very few buildings these days seem to be designed to last. I would say that this is less true of many of our public buildings than of buildings erected by private enterprise. This is an approach we must reject entirely in the future. The department must use every bit of ingenuity it can to retain any building that can possibly be altered and renewed; especially when, like the Marks Building, it is architecturally pleasing. This is an especially good reason for it to stay. When large sections of our population are not properly housed, when many of our children have no schools to go to and when there is a crying need for more hospitals and more educational institutions of every kind, these should be our priorities. If we are really trying to uplift the poor people in our country, housing services and amenities of this nature must come at the top of the list. Money is badly used if we waste what we have. As a developing country we just cannot afford to waste like this and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do what he can through his department to set an example to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the request made by some earlier speakers that works of art such as paintings, sculptures, etc., be introduced into public buildings. The hon. member for Springs, in particular, emphasized this matter very strongly. I want to point out that the provincial council building in Pretoria has won a name for itself as “the building of the Bull”. The building has become known by this name in everyday speech because Hennie Potgieter erected a fine statue of an Afrikaner bull there. If one wants to look further than that, there is Johannesburg station, for example, which is known for its Pierneef paintings. In the same way the Sistine Chapel of St. Peter’s Church is known for its paintings. We have to ask ourselves, of course, what can be regarded as art today. Many things which are not art are regarded as such today. We shall have to guard against those things. The department will doubtless give attention to that consideration, when it considers installing such works of art.

They say that a leopard cannot change its spots and I therefore want to have a look at the past of the United Party. Consequently I looked through the Budget of 1944. In those days they were rather modest people except when it came to war affairs. The Budget of 1944 comprised the royal sum of R212 million—I have converted, the pounds of those days to rands. Out of that total, R106 million represented the war effort of the hon. members opposite—that includes both Opposition parties. In other words, 50% of the Budget in 1944 was in respect of the war effort. Really, the hon. gentlemen opposite paid a great deal to be able to fight with the Russians. The fact that they have so few Russian interests today, is of course not their fault. The Budget of the Department of Public Works, which was called by another name then, was R3 million at the time, with a supplementary amount of R6 million. They had neither the opportunity, the time nor the money to do anything but make war. I do not want to blame them too much, but this is one of the reasons for us being in the difficult position we are in today. As a matter of interest, I just want to mention that the main budget in 1945 was R234 million, of which the war effort accounted for R103 million. The percentage in regard to the war effort was again in the region of 40% to 45%. R3 million was budgeted for the Department of Public Works in that year. The Opposition knew at that stage that the Germans were virtually beaten and that they would have to start paying attention to other tasks they had neglected during the war.

One of the real showpieces of Pretoria West, one to be mentioned with pride, is, of course, the police college. This police college was built just after the English war when Lord Milner was still in the Transvaal. Today these buildings would have been about 70 years old, but have now for the most part been demolished. The college was to have been moved to another site, but this was not done. It was decided rather to improve the buildings. These improvements included, inter alia, the construction of new buildings, flat units, sports grounds, etc., at a cost of R3 572 000. A real showpiece was erected there. An amount of R545 400 was expended on the maintenance of older buildings and on the buildings constructed previously. Today the police college is a prototype; people go there today for guidance in certain respects. Even the staff of the military camp at Voortrekkerhoogte went there to see, for example, how the food was prepared and how it was quickly and efficiently served to about 1 500 to about 1 800 men. Everyone who saw this was impressed by it. In addition, the college is one of the few places where horses are still kept and these horses are used every year at the opening of Parliament. There is also another reason to view the police college with pride. This college has trained and disciplined many of our people. How often do we not hear that someone has lost his life at the border? If it was a policeman, he would have undergone his training at the police college in Pretoria West.

Another matter, which I do not mention with so much pride, but which forms a part of our society, is Laudium, the Indian town about six miles from the Square. The members of the committee from my constituency who were granted an interview by the Minister the other day, asked me to thank him for this privilege and for the spirit and the attitude he displayed in this regard.

That is community development, now.

Even though the hon. member is talking through his neck, I listen to him. That hon. member is dreaming, Mr. Chairman, and you will have to see whether that is not against the rules. I am talking about Indians and about a place where they live. Is that not community development? In any event, these people were very satisfied with the interview they had with the Minister and in addition they went away from it very satisfied. Above all, they asked me to thank the hon. the Minister for being prepared to issue a statement that that area would remain a White area. Shortly thereafter a commission of inquiry was appointed. In that regard they also asked me whether the hon. the Minister could oblige them by letting them know as soon as the commission had come to a decision. Now they are all agitated about that matter again.

There is another matter I should just like to mention. The architects and planners of the department could perhaps give attention to this matter. I should like them to take cognizance of the fact that at other places, buildings have burglar-proofing on both the ground floor and the first floor, and that this is strengthened in such a way that the burglar-proofing is proof against hand grenades. Hand grenades are now thrown with such force as to penetrate through it. Burglar-proofing is proof against fire bombs too. It would not be easy to throw them through the burglar-proofing in the building. I should greatly appreciate it if the department were to have a look at this when next they plan and construct buildings.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. the Minister was quite interested in what my hon. friend, the member for Pretoria West, had to say. I am sure he will take note of it. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister himself has come to some conclusion here this afternoon, namely that a challenge has been presented to him with regard to the department. I, in common with many others, am firmly convinced that perhaps a new direction has to be taken by the Department of Public Works. I think the Minister should endeavour to answer the challenge that has been put to him. We have heard a great many suggestions today as regards the excellence of the work that is being carried out. We have no criticism of the department itself in respect of those matters. We have heard a great deal about the restoration of buildings, the preservation of art and the placing of some of the best works of our indigenous artists in public buildings, all of which I think is very commendable. We have also heard a great deal about the functional purposes of public buildings. I am sure that with that we are very much in agreement. However, the challenge which has been put to the Minister today is whether this department is really serving the purpose which it could serve in the administration of our country, namely the purpose of an advisory, consultative and legislative body. The report, which has a very interesting foreword, makes mention of the possibilities of creative work being carried out by the department and the concern that there is not sufficient time to devote to this creative work, largely because of the shortage of staff, the pressing need and urgency of the work that has to be undertaken and the many other problems with which this department has to deal. But when one looks at a department which is spending R68 million on administration and other forms of expenditure, in order to ensure that buildings worth an amount of R72 million will be erected during the year, one wonders whether this is not a somewhat unbalanced picture which has been placed before us. I find, for instance, that this year, strangely enough, the budgeted expenditure of this department shows an increase of R8,6 million, of which amount R7,4 million is being spent on what is known as the augmentation of salaries, including those of artisans and general employees. I hope the hon. the Minister will endeavour to explain that to us, because it seems to bear no proportion to normal increases or annual increments to the employees of the department. I do feel that this is a great opportunity for the State to be able to channel its desire for the erection of public works, or its desire for any form of infrastructure at all in respect of its entire administration, through the pipeline of experts who will be able to sit back and plan, think and work in conjunction and co-operation with the private sector. I think that this is the operative side of public works in South Africa. I do not think that a department should be maintained which deals with such things as maintenance and renovation of buildings and the employment of cleaners and renovators, etc., in addition to its already heavily committed staff situation. It has to employ professional men and it finds itself in difficulty in regard to the employment of these professional men, particularly because of standards and grades of salary on which these people are to be employed. What it amounts to is that this department is virtually becoming a workshop for the State. I do not think that that should be the purpose of a State undertaking. When one is dealing with organizations like the Railways and the Post Office, one can well understand that this is an enormous service that is being rendered in the daily life of the community. These are two of the essential communications or links that are the lifeblood and maintain the movement of an entire community in its development. However, in regard to expenditure on non-productive work, although necessary in the infrastructure of the community—it is essential in the life of the community but not in the sense that I have described because it is not a moving, developing and progressive side of the life of the community—I think not only that this department is unproductive from the point of view of what it can do in the service of the community but that it could play a very much better, more useful and far more productive part as has been outlined in the statement of policy by my hon. friend, the member for Pietermaritzburg South. We are, after all, living in a modern age which is streamlining all its services and activities. This is an age where we have to make the greatest use of manpower and an era in which we have to make the best of the manpower shortage in the technical sphere. It also gives us the opportunity in the private sector to make use of the entire community as far as its productivity is concerned. This is an opportunity that we have and it is the only avenue that can be used for that purpose. The private sector can then make use of the entire productive value of the community and do what is best for the community. At the same time it will be contributing to the productivity of the community itself and the national wealth of the country. I do not think that we should find ourselves in the peculiar position where excellent ideas, as they may well be, which could be communicated to the department in relation to its planning, have then to be pondered upon by the department in relation to whether they are useful and advisable things to do. A lot of the thinking is useful but it has to be applied correctly.

In this amount of R68 540 000 that is being spent I find a sum of R3 000 that has been set aside for what seems to me to be quite a noble objective. This is a contribution in connection with an investigation into the stabilization of the building and construction industry. This appears to me to be an important item. However, it also seems to me to be a very small and unprepossessing sum of money that has been set aside for such a vital purpose. I am well aware that the National Building Research Institute plays a very great part in the development of the building industry in this country. It does a considerable amount of research in regard to the building industry in this country. It endeavours to lift, realign and streamline the whole attitude and approach to the building industry. This is something which should also be of great interest to this department. In addition its general concern for and management and supervision of the various professions that play a part in this industry, its plan to have a broad and full picture of what is taking place in the country, its opportunity to submit necessary and vital technical reports to a Minister of State to enable him in drawing up his budget to plan for the future, its opportunity to enable us also to plan our building industry for the future, its opportunity to enable us to inject the necessary capital from public funds into the private sector in order to provide the necessary impetus in times of stress in the industry, are all vital and important facets for the department. But the department has not that opportunity. This department is concerned with spending R72 million on public works, with ensuring that there is sufficient maintenance and with ensuring that it has sufficient staff—all sorts of diverse purposes, some of which should never be within the domain of the State except to ensure that on proper tender the work is executed. It has a lot of work to do. It concerns itself with finding accommodation for the staff of the State. There are multifarious duties which it can perform, all of which can have valuable and lasting effects in the planning and thinking of this country. I think the hon. the Minister has a wonderful opportunity, and this is the challenge which has been placed before him by our side of the House namely to see whether he can give us a new and fresh directive in regard to this important matter. I think we have in the private sector sufficient technical people and opportunities to develop it and to promote it and we could then apply ourselves rather to the other aspects I have mentioned and at the same time to incorporate the question of scholastic opportunities. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Jeppe will excuse me if I do not react to his speech and to the request he made. It concerned the policy of the department and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to him in full. Firstly, I should like to address a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Public Works for the excellent arrangements and the assistance with which they provide us at Acacia Park, where most of us are living. We appreciate it.

For me as a newcomer to this House there has been one remarkable thing this afternoon, and that is that we have had very little politics in this debate. It seems to me as if the Opposition does not want to talk politics in this debate, and my impression is that they do not want to talk politics because in this debate, and in the latest report of the Secretary of Public Works, we are given an indication of the enormous sums of money this Government is prepared to spend on the establishment of facilities for, inter alia, our Brown people.

Who is talking politics now?

No, Sir, I think that we should talk politics, because here we have the hard facts. The Opposition does not want to recognize the facts we are submitting to them in the discussion of the other departments. Here, now, they are getting the hard facts. The hon. member for Bryanston is not here this afternoon, but virtually every time he has spoken in this House, he has mounted his hobbyhorse of discrimination and tried to tell this side how little we are doing for the non-Whites. I just want to tell him that in the report of the Secretary of Public Works he can read how much is really being done for our Brown people as far as the establishment of facilities is concerned. I say that the Opposition do not like the facts, because last week, when we went to have a look at what is being done for the Coloureds on the Cape Flats and when we looked at the fine buildings which are being erected there, they did not come along.

They were caucusing.

One member of the Progressive Party, the hon. member for Pinelands, was there and I think that he was very impressed. But the hon. members of the United Party did not come along. [Interjections.] According to reports they were busy caucusing in order to prevent the United Party building from falling apart. You know, Sir, according to a cartoon that appeared in Die Burger of 1 October, there is a very real danger that this building of theirs could fall apart! In the cartoon, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is rubbing out a building, It looks to me like a public building. He is doing this with a great deal of determination and because it is apparently a public building, I am of the opinion that one can discuss this matter under this Vote! [Interjections.]

Sir, I have said that many prestige buildings, fine buildings, are being built on the Cape Flats for the Coloureds.

Bonteheuwel.

Oh, really, Sir, the hon. member is talking about Bonteheuwel now. He is clearly unaware that Bonteheuwel was built by the Department of Community Development for Coloured housing. Surely that is not a public government building. I referred to the fine buildings of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, and we also viewed the University of the Western Cape, and the facilities that had been established for the training of Coloured motor mechanics etc. I want to congratulate the Department on the effective buildings constructed there, and add that at the same time they are aesthetically acceptable. Let us take a closer look at what is being done by the department as far as the establishment of facilities for our Brown people is concerned.

I have before me Annexure B of this report, viz. “Major Works Completed during 1972-’73”, and I just want to quote you a few examples: At Adelaide, a primary school for Coloureds, costing R143 686: Bellville South, outbuildings to the value of R25 199 have been added to the council chamber of the Coloured Persons Representative Council; at Bloemfontein, additions to the value of R376 765 have been made to the Dr. Blok High School for Coloureds; at Dundee, the high/primary school for Indians at a cost of R263 569; at Durban, the high school for Indians at a cost of R377 575, as well as a primary school for Indians at a cost of R187 363. We could continue in this vein. At Clare Hills, Durban, a school for Indians, too, has been built at a cost of R382 535; at Reservoir Hills, Durban, a primary school for Indians has been built at a cost of R181 540, and at Durban-Westville, blocks J and K of the university for Indians have been built at a cost of R668 283. At Heideveld, Cape Town, a high school for Coloureds has been built at a cost of R312 690. That is what has already been completed.

According to the report there are also the following works on which a start has already been made, and which have been approved for the year 1972-’73: at Bellville South, a training college and hostel for Coloureds at a cost of R1 096 000; at Bellville South, University of the Western Cape, a faculty of dentistry at a cost of R438 670; at Clare Hills, Durban, the Springfield Training College for Indians is under construction and will cost R1 564 600. I could continue in this vein. At the University for Indians at Durban-Westville a swimming bath, changing rooms, equipment stores and gymnasium are being built at a cost of R351 120. These are only buildings constructed for Coloureds and Indians, for their exclusive use. Also included in this report are buildings constructed for use by both the Whites and the Brown people. I quote only a few of them, viz. those used by both groups, such as post offices, etc.: At the D. F. Malan Airport, Bellville, additions and alterations to the terminal building at a cost of R969 422; at Bellville, an automatic telephone exchange at a cost of R88 500; at Kraaifontein, a post office and automatic telephone exchange at a cost of R303 500. I could continue in this vein. This just shows that facilities are being established by the Department of Public Works for the Coloureds and the Indians in many spheres and in my opinion it is only right that we should thank the department for this. Hon. members of the Opposition ought to do this too, but they only criticize. Sir, this Government, among other things, is doing its best for our Coloureds and Indians. I concede that we have not yet made up all the leeway, but we are making it up fast and let us be honest and give credit to those people who establish these facilities for our Brown people under difficult circumstances.

Sir, the hon. member who has just sat down has admitted that there is “’n agterstand”. Who is to blame for this? Nobody but hon. members sitting on that side of the House. The blame rests with them and with their ideology of apartheid. It has taken them 26 years in power to wake up. They are beginning to wake up very slowly, but they are still not fully awake. We read in the newspapers that they have a right wing led by the hon. member for Waterberg, whom I do not see here at the moment. Anyway, I believe that he is working up a little bit of steam. We would like to see some of this steam generated here. Sir, listening to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, you would think that he was highly satisfied with this Government’s performance. This Government has no cause to be satisfied with what it has done; it should be ashamed of itself, for the simple reason that for 26 solid years, for more than 2½ decades, we have had nothing but talking and waste and an attempt to put people into little compartments, to categorize them and to do things to them which are wrong and inhuman. [Interjections.] Sir, that hon. member does not know what he is talking about; he had better go back to school.

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with my theme, I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Boksburg. He wants to dish out old buildings with character to Government departments. I want to ask him not to include the Police Department. Sir, I was in the Police Force for 39 years; you might say that I was born in the Police Force although I am now 60 years of age. I know that wherever you go in this country, if you want to find a police station in a town, you can invariably look for the oldest building or an old condemned goal or a condemned school or a condemned magistrate’s court and there you will find the police station, and the same thing applies to the housing of members of the Police Force. I can quote a case in Eshowe in this connection, where a court-house was built in the 1870s. I will admit that the walls of that building are some two or three feet wide. It was in this court-house that King Cetewayo was tried before he was banished. That house is occupied today by a warrant officer. Perhaps the occupant is no longer a warrant officer, but it is certainly occupied by a member of the South African Police Force. That building is close on 100 years old. It was never meant to be a house; it was a court-house. Sir, I will tell you another thing: I am not talking now about the police barracks which were opened a year or two ago in Eshowe, but the police barracks which served Eshowe until then were condemned in the early 1900s as unfit for human habitation. That building was a goal for Bantu because in those days White men in Zululand were few and far between; we were in fact the thin red line. That building was condemned as unfit for human habitation in about 1909. They then built a beautiful goal in Eshowe and touched up this old building, and who was put into it? Members of the Police Force.

Disgrace!

Of course it was a disgrace. In 1958, 1959 or 1960, because of the shortage of housing, they converted part of that old, condemned goal into married quarters, into flats, for the police. Those policemen are still living there, in spite of the fact that the building was condemned as unfit for human habitation in 1909. That building is no longer being used as a goal. They first built a temporary goal, and then went on to build the permanent goal which is now in use, but the police are still housed in the old goal building which was condemned as unfit as long ago as 1909.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. That hon. member does not know what is going on there. Sir, I have only spoken about Eshowe, but I can mention other places too, where the police are occupying old condemned magistrate’s courts and goals.

In Pinetown.

The building in Pinetown, now occupied by the police, used to be a school; it was converted into a magistrate’s residency and then became a police station. The old police station which became a magistrate’s residency is now occupied by the Department of Bantu Administration. It is a shocking building and I hope that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development will see that we get a decent building there and that he will not listen to this twaddle spoken here by one or two members opposite about retaining old buildings. Sir, people seem to forget that the police particularly have advanced more than any other department. They no longer use horses for police work and there are very few pedal cycles in use in the Police Force. Today the police have mechanical transport and radio communication and they ought to be housed in buildings which are suitable. When the hon. member talks about retaining old buildings and dishing them out to Government departments, my reply to that is: “Very well, give them to other departments, if you like, but do not give them to the police”.

I think you should go on foot patrol again.

I am glad to see the hon. member is back in the House. I quite agree that there are old buildings such as Marks Building which should retain their character. There are other buildings, too, which could be adapted to meet the accommodation requirements of certain departments, but this does not apply to the Police. Sir, this is a tender spot which me because the Police Department has always been the Cinderella of Government departments as far as the erection of new buildings is concerned. I hope the Minister of Public Works will take note of these remarks.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West babbled something here about the war years. What on earth is he talking about? Hon. members opposite always boast that they have been in power for 26 years. Sir, 26 years is a long time. Union was formed in 1910, at a time when money was scarce, but in those days you still had gold sovereigns. Sir, look at the advances made by South Africa during the 26-year period from 1910 to 1936, in spite of the fact that during that period we went through a catastrophic war, World War I, and that we had a terrible depression, which members of the younger generation know nothing about. Since 1948, when this Government came into power we have had 26 years of peace in South Africa, not thanks to the Government but thanks to the good sense of the South African people, and what has this Government achieved over that period? The hon. member talks about the wonderful achievements of this Government. Sir, they have achieved no “prestasies”, and it is absolutely wrong for the hon. member to harp on the war years. Nobody here wants to do it, and in doing so he was completely out of tune. One complaint I have is that this report brings us to the end of March 1973. It is now almost the end of 1974 and let us face it, this report is now somewhat out of date. I admit the report is very interesting. I feel for the Secretary for Public Works when he complains that there is poaching of his staff, particularly his professional staff. However, we would like up-to-date information. After all, this report deals with the period ended March 1973 and we are now discussing 1974-’75 Votes. It is misleading to have to read this report in order to see what is amiss at present. I know that there is a chronic shortage of staff, as in all other departments, particularly a shortage of senior and professional staff. I think, however, that the Department of Public Works is the one department that could compete with the private sector by upgrading the salaries of professional men. I quite agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that we want the best brains in the Public Works Department and they must be paid the best money because they have a vast responsibility. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi said that the police had made progress. I wholeheartedly agree with him. However, let me say that he is in no way an example to the police outside. I think there is a difference between Parliament and nKothla in Zululand.

*I should like to discuss our Government buildings and the statues in front of those buildings. Various members have touched on this matter, among others the hon. members for Springs and Boksburg. In my opinion this is a matter that has to be settled. On page 7 of this 1973 report the following is stated—

People from Pretoria or from other areas have created works of art. Here I want to refer to the statues by Moses Kottler and also to those by Tinie Pritchard, statues which do not really depict the history of South Africa. When one erects statues at a Government Building, they should depict the history of the nation. One should be able to see the past and the future of the nation in those statues. There was a period when virtually all the statues in our country were equestrian statues. The statues of Louis Botha and others are equestrian statues and all are sombre statues depicting the country with its broad plains, and also the role of the horse in our history. In later years a change took place when we had more busts, symbolic of a people for whom the process of thought had become paramount.

Not one of you over there would qualify for such a statue.

One could see that in that period a different course was being followed. In my opinion the statue of Dr. Verwoerd in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building is one that does not really do justice to the greatness of the man, because it has not been situated in the most suitable part of the building. Perhaps moving this statue could result in justice being done to both statute and building.

However, there is one statue that has not yet been created in the course of our history. This is the statue of people who have been able to co-operate through the years notwithstanding their differences, namely our English-speaking and our Afrikaans-speaking people. This image has already been built up, but has not yet been projected and I believe that it will gain in stature in the future of South Africa. Perhaps this statue should be cast in bronze and should depict two people holding each other’s hands. On one side, perhaps, the dangers a country like South Africa has to face should be depicted. Perhaps, after it has become history and when we are no longer here, someone will then be able to read about the day when the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people found each other. May it come to pass in our time and in our history, that such a statue be erected in front of or in one of our public buildings. Let us look, for example, at the work of Van Wouw at the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria. When one descends the steps, one sees depicted before one the history of the Voortrekkers. When Gen. Smuts was regarding those statues and looking down on them from the steps, he said more or less the following (translation)—

It is our past and our future that must be captured in our buildings today. This must be the treasure of our future. It is rightly said that after 15 years a building has perhaps lost its value, but the same does not apply to the statue. The value of a work of art increases as it gets older because it depicts that part of a people which cannot be destroyed. We asked certain people what the symbolism of the Voortrekker Monument was. The following was written in reply (translation)—

They go on to state (translation)—

A fine history is reflected in the monument if one visits the monument and understands its symbolism. I quote again (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation of the friendly spirit which, generally speaking, both sides of the House displayed here towards my department. I have generally gained the impression that in fact there cannot be much wrong with the Department of Public Works. I should like to claim the credit for that for the officials of the department. I think that the contributions made by the hon. gentlemen opposite, even the one made by the hon. member for Umlazi, convince one that things are going reasonably well in the department.

Emphasis has been placed here on certain bottlenecks that are being experienced. In this regard I immediately call to mind the contribution made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who put his finger on existing bottlenecks such as staff problems caused by the fact that professional people are being enticed away from our department. He asked me what answers were being found by my department in that regard. He also put forward some suggestions, and I want to tell him now that those are suggestions which are in fact being considered from time to time and are sometimes also implemented in part. As far as giving out work to the private sector is concerned, this has already been implemented by the department to a very large extent. The hon. member also referred to considerations such as that the department should be divorced from the control of the Public Service Commission and that the salaries should not depend on the scales applicable throughout the Public Service. He also mentioned other considerations; he said, for instance, that the department should break away from the Tender Board and that the department itself should take care of these matters. Before starting to argue about the function of the Public Service Commission, I want to tell the hon. member that one is immediately faced with the fact that the staff problem in the department as far as professional people are concerned, is also a problem experienced in virtually all other departments. Then one comes to realize that this would be nothing but patchwork, unless it is decided that each department may constitute its staff at the salaries it is prepared to pay, but this will not work out in practice anyway. Having allowed one’s thoughts to come full-circle, one simply finds oneself once again faced with the fact that—as we are functioning under the Public Service Commission with such unity as there is, in spite of the diversity one finds amongst Government departments—that unity still serves a useful purpose, too. Next I come to the hon. member’s comments on the State Tender Board.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended, I was just about to refer to the comments made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on the State Tender Board. He said that the department should actually have its own tender board. I can give the hon. member the assurance that my department is not experiencing any problems with the tender board as the position is at present. Whenever Tender Board exemption is required, it is granted, on condition, of course, that a good case can be made out for it. If there are urgent, special circumstances, the necessary Tender Board approval is granted. In this regard no problems are being experienced.

The hon. member also mentioned that the Department of Public Works had to be the balancer in the building industry. I want to agree with the hon. member that it would be a very fine ideal if the State were to suspend its activities whenever the building industry was being over-taxed and were to proceed with them whenever the building industry was being under-utilized. That is a very fine ideal and one tries to pursue it as far as possible. Unfortunately things do not always work out that way in practice, the reason being that the State itself, as may be deduced from its programme, experiences many urgent needs on a very wide front. However, I have no fault to find with the principle which the hon. member invoked.

The hon. member for Jeppe identified himself with the comments made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. What I have said in regard to the latter hon. member also covers to a large extent the considerations mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe. I want to point out further, for his information, that provision is being made in the Revenue Vote for an amount of approximately R68,5 million, of which only R28 309 000 is being voted for administrative purposes. The rest of the amount is for productive work. In addition, capital is being appropriated from the Loan Vote, which, of course, also comprises productive work.

Then the hon. member for Boksburg, who apologized for the fact that he would not be able to be here, spoke in the first place about the very comprehensive task of my department, for which I express appreciation to him. He asked whether we were not being too quick to demolish old buildings. I can give the hon. member the assurance that buildings which have any historic value at all are not demolished until the Monuments Council has been consulted. I am sympathetic towards the attitude which was also displayed by other hon. members, namely that we should not be so quick to demolish public buildings. Of course, this same principle applies in respect of private buildings as well, because wherever the Monuments Council intervenes, no discrimination is made. However, it is not always so easy to apply this in practice, but the principle is being pursued. Then the hon. member for Boksburg also pleaded for more standardization. I can give the hon. member the assurance that my department makes use of standard plans to a large extent. It must be understood, however, that in most cases one cannot simply take a plan drawn up for one piece of land and use it in respect of another piece of land. There are differences in the angle of slope, etc. And then there are also adjustments that have to be made in every case. However, we do make use of standardization to a large extent. The hon. member for Umbilo associated himself with what was said by the hon. member for Boksburg and also spoke about the demolition of buildings, and what I have just said in this regard also holds good in respect of what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member also referred to safety measures at prisons and at other places of custody. My department does not lay down the requirements; they are laid down by the department in question. My department merely carries them into effect. The responsibility for safety measures, in so far as the construction of the building is concerned, therefore rests with the department in question, be it the Department of Justice or the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions or whatever the case may be.

The hon. member also referred to the deterioration of our staff position. This position is difficult. We readily grant that. In fact, it is difficult not only in Government departments, but even in the private sector. I do not wish to embark upon this field, but I nevertheless want to tell the Committee that my department has up to now applied the money placed at its disposal in an effective manner, with the necessary control. The Department plans five years ahead, and it is expected that in the next five years the department will have to apply R600 million and will be able to do so judiciously. Although there are problems, I do not think that we shall not be able to overcome them. The hon. member also made inquiries in connection with sub-head L of the Public Works Vote, and I should like to give the hon. member the most important items that were responsible for the increase under this sub-head. The total increase amounts to R2 265 000. In respect of inter-provincial bridges there is an increase of R134 000, which is attributable to the fact that urgent repairs to the C. H. Mitchell and Vaal River bridges had to be carried out. Then there is an increase of R2 118 000 in respect of State-owned and hired buildings and installations. This increase of just over R2 million is attributable to the fact that more buildings in the Republic and in countries abroad require urgent attention. Factors such as the recent floods have brought about unforeseen expenditure, and owing to the period of time that has elapsed since the erection of the pre-constructed buildings, extensive repairs have now become necessary.

That brings me to the hon. member for Springs, who also apologized for the fact that he would not be able to be here. The hon. member asked questions in connection with works of art and showed an interest in the arts committee which I approved recently. This arts committee has been constituted as follows: The Deputy Secretary of the planning branch of the department acts as chairman. The other members are Prof. Trümpelmann, a connoisseur of the arts from the Cape Province, Dr. Scott, a connoisseur of the arts from the Free State, Mr. Morris Kahn, a connoisseur of the arts from Natal, Miss N. Erasmus, a connoisseur of the arts from Johannesburg, and Mr. Wynand Smit, a connoisseur of the arts from Pretoria. The co-opted members of this committee are the architect who plans the building, or his representative, as well as a representative of the user department in question.

The hon. member for Springs also put a question in connection with the subsidy to fire brigade services. Municipal fire brigades are maintained from rates and taxes levied by local authorities under the various ordinances. In terms of the State Property (Immunity from Rating) Act, the State does not pay rates on State-owned property which is not let or utilized at a profit. Since the fire brigade is also placed at the disposal of non-rateable public buildings, the Government has decided to subsidize fire brigades. The subsidy is calculated on the following formula: 7½ cents per R100 of the valuation of the non-rateable building, including land value, on condition that the aggregate value of non-rateable State-owned buildings within a municipal area amounts to at least R100 000 and a modern, well-equipped fire brigade is being maintained by the municipality concerned. Every three years subsidies are reviewed and based on amended valuations.

The hon. member mentioned that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions was being housed in a building which is in a poor state. In this regard I must point out that priorities are, in the first instance, not determined by my department, but by the user department. The degree of urgency which the user department attaches to the replacement of that building will determine what priority is given to that building on the list of priorities.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to the construction of a technical college in Springs, and asked for it to be expedited. The tender date for the technical college has at this stage been fixed for October 1977. In this case, too, the position is that my department does not determine priorities. The contract period is 30 months and the estimated cost of the building is R2,8 million at this stage.

The hon. member for South Coast put questions to me, if I understood him correctly, in connection with the fire in the Civitas Building. I have a full report available on the origin of the fire in so far as its cause could be determined. I do not want to read it out, but I do want to tell the hon. member that it is quite clear that the fire protection measures taken in the building were more effective than those required by the city council of Pretoria. They were also more effective than the requirements laid down by the Bureau of Standards. However, there was a certain shortcoming which resulted from the fact that the building was still under construction; consequently the carbon dioxide apparatus which was supposed to be functioning in the basement, where the fire started, had not yet started operating. That was the only shortcoming, but the normal requirements for fire-fighting had already been more than met at that stage. The cause of the fire is not known yet, but it is being suspected that it was a burning cigarette. However, one possibility which has been ruled out virtually completely is that there was a defect in the electrical installation.

What was the amount of the damage?

In reply to a question in this House I said that the estimated damage came to R55 000.

The hon. member also mentioned unnecessary work and space in new buildings. I cannot agree with the hon. member in that regard, for if one looks at the older buildings, one finds that they appear to be very imposing and artistic, but those things which lend those characteristics to such buildings cannot be regarded as essentials. For instance, if one looks at the Marks Building, with which I shall deal later on, one finds that the usable floor area of the building is very small indeed. This is quite different from the position at present in regard to the planning of new buildings. Except in cases where durable materials are used, the new buildings of today no longer have all those curves and flourishes which the old buildings used to have. The hon. member may have objections to this, but when one uses durable material, it does in any case pay for itself in the long run.

The hon. member also asked for more work to be given out. In that regard the position is as follows: In accordance with the department’s general policy of not competing with the private sector, services are mainly given out to contractors. The department only employs a nucleus of artisan staff operating more or less on a stand-by basis in carrying out urgent maintenance, repair and other smaller services. Apart from these services everything is, for all practical purposes, given out to contractors.

Then the hon. member said that he found our tendering system archaic. He did not say for what reasons, and I am inclined not to agree with the hon. member in that respect.

The hon. member for Kempton Park made a very interesting speech on the problems of physically handicapped people. The hon. member pointed out that provision of that nature had been made recently. What the hon. member said is perfectly correct. To an increasing extent the endeavour today is that these people should become self-supporting as far as possible What the hon. member said will consequently be kept in mind in so far as it is practicable to give effect to it.

The hon. member for Orange Grove took part in the debate without being very critical, and I should like to welcome this. In an interesting speech he referred to the position of the Marks Building. One wing of the Marks Building which projects on the other side of the building, as seen from here, will be demolished, and then a new tower is going to be built there, but the fate of the rest of the Marks Building will still be decided in the future. There was planning in this regard; there was an advanced design for replacing the Marks Building with a new building, but because I myself and other members of the Cabinet feel about the Marks Building the way the hon. member has intimated he feels too, it will not be proceeded with until such time as the matter has once again been examined very thoroughly. I can tell the hon. member that if the Marks Building is to be modernized from within so that it may comply with modern requirements, it will also cost a considerable amount of money. I cannot remember the amount, but I know that it will run into millions.

The hon. member for Pretoria West also referred to works of art. What I have already said, namely that we have appointed a committee which will advise the department when works of art have to be put up in a building, also serves as a reply to what the hon. member said here. Then the hon. member also referred to the Police College, and he also touched upon a number of general matters, to which I do not wish to reply but in respect of which I want to express my appreciation to him. Sir, I should also like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg for the friendly comments he made on the department.

The hon. member for Umlazi complained about the state of the Police and Justice buildings. I think that the news I am going to give the hon. member now will possibly induce him to join the Force again, and this is that services for the police are being undertaken at the moment at a cost of R43 million. Then the hon. member complained about the Secretary’s annual report, which was a little late. I think this is in fact only normal.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also dedicated his speech in a very interesting manner to works of art in public buildings. Apart from what I have already said, I just want to tell the hon. member that during the year 1972-’73 no works of art were put up in buildings because of the fact that the Treasury had made an appeal—and an appeal from the Treasury is really an order—for expenditure to be curtailed.

I think I have now replied to all the points that were raised here. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. members for their contributions and also to my officials for their support and for the task being performed by them.

I wonder whether I may ask the hon. the Minister kindly to give an explanation of the amount of R4 120 000, to which the hon. member for Jeppe referred, and which appears under subhead A, under Cleaners, etc., i.e. under the item “Augmentation of salaries”.

I have now been told that the new salaries had not yet become known at that stage, and that this was why a general provision was made for salary increases to professional people for the entire department.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as in previous years, copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of the House even before the Bill was read a First Time, in order to enable them to study these documents. Unfortunately it has not been possible to issue these documents to all hon. members.

The text of the Bill is very short and consists for the most part of the customary clauses relating to the coming into operation of certain provisions contained in the Schedules to the Bill.

Since taxation proposals do not form part of the minutes of the House of Assembly, section 58(7) of the principal Act has to be amended, and this amendment is being proposed by clause 1 of the Bill.

Included in the penalty provisions in the principal Act is a provision relating to the importation, distribution and exhibition of banned publications. Since the penalty provisions in regard to these matters have now been embodied in the Publications Act, 1974, the relevant provisions in the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, may be deleted.

†Mr. Speaker, the Schedules to the Bill consist mainly of amendments to the Schedules to the principal Act, amendments effected on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries by means of Government notices during the period 2 February 1973 to 1 August 1974 and in respect of which confirmation is now being sought.

The increased customs duties on certain textile materials, which were imposed by means of taxation proposals tabled on 20 September 1974, are also included in the Schedules. As was announced at the time, the Board of Trade and Industries is giving urgent attention to applications for tariff protection submitted to it by various branches of the textile industry. Should the Board’s further investigations show that the rates of duty imposed require amendment, such amendments will be effected as soon as possible by means of a Government notice issued in terms of section 48 of the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for making advance copies of this Bill available to members on this side, and also for giving us, in advance, the explanatory memorandum to which he has referred in his Second Reading speech. We find these documents, delivered to us in timely fashion, to be very useful indeed and helpful in getting a full understanding of the legislation involved. The former member for Parktown, Mr. Sonny Emdin, did appeal to the hon. the Minister last year to have the explanatory memorandum printed so that it could be made available to all members. We would like the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to that suggestion because it would help members generally on this side if that memorandum were freely available.

Normally this is a measure that comes at the very end of the session, and very often it comes at such a late stage in the session that there is a holidy feeling about the place. On this occasion it has come well before the end of the session and there is still a very serious atmosphere prevailing. I think that it is appropriate on this occasion because we have a serious measure before us. This measure, as the hon. the Minister has said, deals with the Board of Trade measures for the amendment of customs and excise duties, and it also embodies the taxation proposals in regard to customs, excise and sales duties that have been announced this year.

There are three matters I should like to raise in this Second Reading debate in regard to this measure. The first is the extent and the variety of the Board of Trade recommendations and the impact they are going to have on the economy since they cover the wide spectrum of industrial activity they do this year. The second matter is the taxation proposals that have been introduced to protect the textile industries and the third concerns sales duties.

The Board of Trade recommendations are designed to protect South African industries. Even taking into account the fact that this Bill covers a longer period than usual owing to the fact that this session is later than usual, it appears to me that the number of items covered by Board of Trade recommendations is considerably larger than usual. It also appears to me that they cover a wider spectrum of industry than is normally the case. These measures, for example, deal with parts for the motor industry, any number of chemicals, the names of which I certainly cannot understand, let alone pronounce, they deal with textiles, clothing, electrical goods, contraceptives, paper products, various hardware items and various types of tools and so on and so forth.

It may well be that this variety and this volume is the result of the policy of replacing import control with tariff protection. That is a policy which we on this side of the House support. We have never liked import control to be used as a protective measure because it has a very distorting effect on the economy. Therefore we agree in general with the idea of replacing import control with tariff protection. We believe, however, that tariff protection of industry must be granted on a very selective basis, that it should not be all-embracing and that it should follow clear guide-lines and clear principles. We believe that there are three main sets of circumstances which justify tariff protection. We believe that it is justified where industries are required for strategic reasons and for reasons of the security of the State.

We believe that tariff protection is justified in developing industries which are labour-intensive and which will give employment to our ever-expanding labour force provided that those industries are likely to develop into reasonably efficient industries by world standards. Thirdly, we believe that protection is justified in regard to infant industries which, because of the particular advantages they may enjoy on the South African economic scene, are likely to become viable and efficient and particularly are likely to contribute to the exports of the country. On the other hand, we do not believe that customs tariffs should be used indiscriminately and that they should place too general an umbrella of protection over South African industry as a whole. Under present circumstances I say this particularly, for two reasons.

The first is that although South Africa is a rich country which is well endowed with economic resources, those economic resources are not unlimited. The resource of labour is not unlimited. It is limited by the number of people we have who have skills and who offer those skills on the labour market. It is limited by the tardiness of the Government in encouraging Africans to contribute to the labour market. At present our resources are limited by a severe shortage of capital, by an overloaded transport system and by an even more overloaded communications system. These are some of the limited factors in our economy at present. These are the resources which all industries are competing for.

I think that the Government should be very careful indeed and very circumspect in encouraging less productive and less efficient industries to grab these scarce resources. We want these scarce resources used where they can be used most productively, where they can produce jobs, where they can produce exports and where they can improve the security of our country. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether for instance an item which has been included for additional protection, an item like buckles, falls within any of these categories.

Which one?

Buckles. I should like to know whether locks for suitcases fall within the items that really do justify protection.

The second reason why under present circumstances we should be particularly circumspect in regard to where protection is offered, is the consideration whether we can afford to put prices up further with inflation running at more than 13% per annum. Tariff increases do just that. They put up prices in two ways. Firstly, they directly increase the cost of imported goods and, secondly, they increase the cost of local goods by removing the discipline of imported competition. I would submit that we can only afford these evils of higher prices if there are compensatory advantages in other directions that far outweigh the evils, but in many respects I find it difficult to see such advantages.

The second aspect of this Bill I would like to deal with, as I mentioned at the beginning, is the taxation proposals in regard to textiles. It appears from what the hon. the Minister has said both in his Second Reading speech and in previous statements, that the duties are being imposed as an emergency measure to deal with the emerging recession and unemployment that is taking place in the textile industry. The hon. the Minister has told us this evening that the Board of Trade is investigating the position of the textile industry and I think that that is just as well. The textile industry is a particularly complicated one. It is a very difficult one to apply correct protective measures to. Its fortunes depend not only on economic factors such as prices, but also on considerations such as fashion trends and changes. If the industry is not able to deal with fashion changes, it gets into trouble. I believe that fashion changes have had quite a big part to play in the present difficulties in which this industry finds itself. Fashion has decreed a change from knitted fabrics to woven fabrics, and fashion is a very powerful force. You will not make women wear knitted fabrics if woven fabrics are in fashion …

Hear, hear!

… however expensive you make woven fabrics by applying additional duties to them. This is very important and I hope the hon. the Minister is taking note of it.

I am taking notes.

I also question whether the present problems experienced by the textile industry are only, or even mainly, caused by large-scale imports of textiles. I believe the textile industry is suffering from the backlash of a period when there was over-ordering by its customers, not only over-ordering from import sources but also from local sources at a time when delivery periods were very long. As a result of this over-ordering, as soon as the supply position returned more or less to normal, they found themselves with stocks in excess of their requirements. They found themselves overstocked at a time when it has been particularly expensive and difficult to finance overstocking, and so they have had to liquidate stocks.

As a result, the stream of orders to the local industry has dried up. What disturbs me particularly, is the massive level of these taxation measures which have been applied. It disturbs me very much to realize the effect which these very big increases in duties in certain respects is going to have on the cost of clothing, and on the cost of living generally. The local industry can only supply between 60% and 70% in volume of what is required by the local market. It comes nowhere near producing the variety of quality, design and pattern that is needed in a fashion-conscious market. Therefore, in a position like that, where it cannot supply the market with its requirements, it will be necessary to continue to import the lines to which the duties have been applied and to pay these duties, thereby raising the landed cost of these fabrics. What is even more disturbing, is the way in which these emergency taxation measures have been applied. The lower the overseas cost of the cloth is, the heavier the impact of these measures. The cheaper cloths that are required by the lower income groups are relatively going to be affected more by these duties than more expensive cloths which are used by higher income groups.

I would like to give this House an example of the impact of these duties. I refer to a fabric which is covered by item 51.04.90, subitem 15 namely plain texturized crêpe. This is an item which overseas costs Rl,72 a metre. The old duty was 17,2 cents, or 10%. The new duty is not 17,2 cents but Rl,26. The effect of that increase in duty—this is on a line of merchandise that is produced in very small quantities in South Africa—is going to be that the new landed cost of that line will be R3-50, against the old landed cost of R2 approximately. This is a line of merchandise which under present fashion trends is in very considerable demand.

Another very unsatisfactory and very unfortunate aspect of this legislation is that these duties apply to all goods which had not reached a South African port at the time when the measures were tabled in the House. This means that they apply to goods that had been shipped but had not arrived here, goods which the importers had no chance whatsoever to cancel if they were, for any reason, unable to meet these duties. In some cases, the additional duties these importers will be called upon to pay, are quite drastic. I will give two examples. One is of a nylon taffeta. These are actual consignments that importers are committed to accepting in practice. A consignment of nylon taffeta the overseas value of which is R4 913 used to be subject to a duty of R2 818, while the new duty will be R7 030.

Another example: A consignment of cotton printed curtaining valued overseas at R10 800 used to be subject to a duty of R1 080, while the new duty will be R6 980. These are drastic changes and are increases in liabilities of importers that can put them into grave difficulties. Importers do not always find it easy to find additional sums of money of the size I have just mentioned. They may not be able to recover these additional costs when they eventually make up and sell the goods. I am extremely concerned about the possible effects that this can have on the clothing industry and the difficulties in which theý will find themselves. We on this side of the House want to see a healthy textile industry, but are the heavy-handed emergency measures which the hon. the Minister has tabled as taxation measures—bearing in mind the implications they are going to have on the clothing industry and the cost of living—really necessary? I believe the hon. the Minister must ask the Board of Trade to review this matter as one of great urgency. If it finds, as I am sure it will find, that these duties are excessive, the measures recommended by the Board of Trade should be made retrospective.

The third aspect of this Bill I want to discuss is the sales tax. We on this side of the House do not believe that the reduction in sales tax which have been announced this year go nearly far enough. I do not know how much sales tax the items contained in this Bill are likely to raise, but even if they are to be responsible for the full amount of the sales tax which is estimated for in the Estimates of Revenue, we can still afford to do without them. The country will be very much better off if we did not have to pay them. Sales tax is a directly inflationary measure, because it puts prices up directly. It does this more so because of the way in which it is levied. The fact that sales tax is levied at source, viz. either when goods are imported or when they leave the manufacturer, and not at the point of sale, means that this tax has a cascading effect. In other words, distributors throughout the chain add their profit not only to the cost of the goods but also to the tax with the result that in the end the consumer is paying more by way of increased prices than the Government is getting by way of tax.

We on this side of the House have consistently pleaded that this tax, if it is needed, should be levied at point of sale. I know that there are administrative problems about this, but it is a perfectly feasible thing to do. This is the way a sales tax is levied in many other countries. It becomes a tax of a somewhat different nature. I think in a time when we are going through inflation at the rate of over 13%, the need is such that every step to alleviate the burden of prices on the public must be taken. With inflation running at this rate, the time has come when bold steps are needed; we must not play at this game, and I believe that the elimination of the sales tax is one of the steps we can take.

Finally I should like to say that there is one provision included in this Bill that has the absolute wholehearted support of this side of the House. I am referring to the fact that steps are being taken which will allow our soldiers on the borders to enjoy their drinks and smokes duty free.

We shall not be opposing the Bill at Second Reading, but we shall have something more to say about it at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the principles to be applied in the levying of customs and excise duties laid down by the hon. member for Constantia. He is, of course, speaking on behalf of his side of the House. I want to say at once that as far as the principles laid down by the hon. member are concerned I—and this side of the House, too, I am sure—am entirely in agreement with him. However, my difficulty arises when the hon. member deals with specific matters. According to the principles he laid down, the hon. member clearly stated that he was in favour of tariffs being used to protect local industries and particularly to protect labour-intensive industries and industries which are still in the initial stages, in their infancy, and that they should be helped to stand on their own two feet. However, when the hon. member deals with specific matters, he contradicts himself very effectively. For example he talks about the protection of industries that are labour-intensive, but when he deals with specific matters, he criticizes the new tariffs in the case of the textile industry, which is labour-intensive in that it employs a 100 000 workers. Where can one find a more labour-intensive industry than this specific one? On the one hand he recommends that this kind of industry should be protected by means of tariffs, but on the other hand, when it comes to specific matters, he criticizes the principle that he himself advocates. Our difficulty on this side of the House is that there is no underlying philosophy in the economic or financial policy of the Opposition. They peck here and they peck there; they criticize here and they criticize there, but there is no clearly recognizable economic philosophy. We, on the other hand, have a very clearly recognizable economic philosophy on which we base the specific measures that we take.

I agree with the hon. member that certain industries must be dealt with great care and that one should take care that protection is not granted to less productive industries. I agree with him that we should be very careful in applying tariffs so as not to try and cosset industries that have no right to exist in our country. There is one other factor, of course, which changes this whole picture and the hon. member for Constantia will concede that when we are faced with a political situation in the world and with boycotts and with threats of boycotts, it is also necessary for this Government to look at industries that will make us more independent of the world as a whole. We have to protect certain industries because there is a danger that we shall not be able to obtain supplies from abroad, and for that reason certain industries have to be protected on non-economic grounds.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member dwelt at length on the textile situation and the new tariffs that have now been introduced to protect the textile industry. I concede that in some instances there should have been drastic measures, but if the Government is faced with the situation that the textile industry has to discharge from 1 000 to 3 000 workers, and more, since they no longer have a market for their product because the clothing manufacturers and traders are importing large quantities of those goods at absolute dumping prices, then the Government has no option; it is then obliged to take drastic steps to protect that industry.

If you allege that these things are being dumped here, why did the Government not take action?

Sir, that hon. member knows so little about these matters that he would do well to keep quiet. I shall explain the position to him. There are a number of sophisticated methods of export promotion which amount to nothing more than dumping. It is merely that it is no longer called dumping, because no exporting country is so stupid as to lay itself open to the charge of dumping, but there are so many sophisticated methods of getting round the concept of dumping. It is nothing but dumping, but it simply cannot be pinned down under the definition of dumping. If, for example, Sir, one imports cotton piece goods at a landed price that is less than the price of the cotton that is used in manufacturing that product—and this has happened—then what is that but dumping?

Why do you allow it?

For the simple reason that one cannot pin it down under the definition of dumping. [Interjection.] Sir, it is extremely difficult to explain something to a man if he is unable to understand the explanation. Sir, I said that it is necessary to take drastic steps in such a case in order to prevent thousands upon thousands of workers in the textile industry being forced out of their jobs. The hon. member for Constantia also referred to the fact that our local industry cannot produce the necessary variety. I want to concede readily that as far as sophisticated materials are concerned, the local industry is unable to compete because its market is too small, but for the general market, for the needs of the man in the street, the man whose cause the hon. member is so fond of championing, the local industry can produce anything. The local industry can produce more than enough of a reasonable variety, and not only 60% or 70%, as the hon. member alleged. The local industry can supply virtually the entire needs of this country and with a certain degree of variety, but I repeat that there is a small demand for highly sophisticated goods which our local industry cannot provide so easily because our market is not big enough. But I see no reason why we should let our local industry go to rack and ruin for the sake of a small percentage—perhaps it is 10%—of the demand for sophisticated goods.

Then the hon. member had a great deal to say about sales duty, and he repeated the statement that the reduction in sales duty is not nearly big enough. And then he again tried to reopen a debate we conducted here four years ago concerning the principle of whether one should apply sales duty as a fiscal measure. We concluded that debate four years ago and I see no reason why we should reopen it again this evening. The point is simply that if one were to further reduce that sales duty, one would have to impose taxation somewhere else. Our difficulty with the Opposition is that all they do is ask constantly for reductions in tax without ever suggesting where the alternative funds are to come from. If the hon. member were to do a little research on what is happening in other countries, he would find that France, for example, suspended sales duty temporarily as an interim anti-inflationary measure two years ago. Did this achieve anything? The rate of inflation in France continued to be higher than our rate of inflation in spite of the fact that that sales duty was temporarily suspended. What is more, the hon. member maintains that this sales duty is inflationary too. That is true the first time it is applied, but this sales duty has not been increased since it was introduced; it has been reduced every time, and as I see it, that is surely anti-inflationary. He went on to refer to the escalating effect of this sales duty. This is all part of the debate on the necessity of obtaining income by way of sales duty, and as I have said, we concluded that debate a long time ago and it is finished and done with.

But I want to come back to the remark made by the hon. member in the course of his introductory sentences. He said that this debate is often conducted in a holiday atmosphere, as he called it. Sir, the reason for that is clear. It is probably one of the driest debates there is because it is about a long list of figures. If one looks at this Bill, there are a few hundred items consisting almost entirely of figures. For the ordinary man, of course, it is very dull but for anyone who takes an interest in the economy, this Bill provides a mass of extremely interesting information. I want to pay tribute this evening to the Board for Trade and Industry, which has an extremely difficult task to perform. Looking at the explanatory memorandum we received from the hon. the Minister, to which the hon. member for Constantia also referred and for which he thanked the Minister, it is clear to all who take an interest in these matters that virtually everyone of these few hundred changes in the tariff headings before us have been approved by the Board of Trade and Industry, because throughout one finds the words: “Recommended by BTI” and “On the recommendation of the BTI,” etc. Virtually each one of these few hundred tariff changes that have been effected, whether they have been increased or reduced, temporarily suspended or permanently abolished, have been recommended by the Board of Trade and Industry. We entrust an enormous task to that board. In passing, that is another reason for the increase in the number of members of this board, namely from five to seven. When one begins to analyse these changes, one comes across very interesting data. Take for example the case of fertilizer. For many years fertilizer was a product we had to import. During the last few decades in particular, when we began to develop our own fertilizer industry here, our young fertilizer industry had to be given tariff protection. Now, however, we have come to the stage of being a fertilizer exporting country. Thanks to the far-sightedness of the Government in establishing Foskor and thanks to the enormous supplies of phosphate being mined at Phalaborwa, we have now become a fertilizer exporting country. However, owing to the oil crisis, there is now a temporary shortage of nitrogenous fertilizer. Now the Board of Trade and Industry has come up with this very interesting measure they are applying. In Item 506.08, tariff heading No. 28.16, the import duty on ammonia in aqueous form and anhydrous ammonia is temporarily lifted because we do have an oversupply of phosphate but there is a temporary shortage of nitrogenous fertilizer. Because the countries to which we export want balanced mixtures and not single element fertilizers, this import duty on ammonia is temporarily lifted to import ammonia in order to use it in our mixtures together with our abundant phosphates and be able to institute a profitable export trade in fertilizer.

Let us take another example. After the floods in the vicinity of the Orange River we had virtually no sultana crop this year, and consequently there was a temporary suspension of the duty on dried grapes, in other words, raisins and sultanas. By utilizing all these methods, the Board of Trade and Industry succeeds brilliantly in maintaining the balance in our industrial production. That is why I want to break a lance this evening for the outstanding work that is being done by the Board of Trade and Industry in their guidance of our industrial development and our economy by means of these comprehensive tariff heading changes.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Paarl, who has just sat down, I would not like to live in a fairlyland of normal conditions whilst we are actually living in an extremely highly inflationary world. There is no question whatsoever that this particular Bill is going to increase and add to the inflationary spiral which is unfortunately afflicting South Africa as much as it is afflicting other counties. With all respect to the Board of Trade and Industry, I think perhaps a little more careful consideration may have altered this state of affairs where the opportunity presented itself. One only has to look at the figures with regard to receipts for customs, excise and sales tax over the years to realize what this particular form of taxation presents to the country. For the income tax year for 1971 the estimates were R649 million against actual receipts of R735 million. In 1972 it was estimated at R756 million against actual receipts of R845 million. In 1973 it was estimated at R760 million and we have not received the income figures yet. For 1974 it was estimated at R772 million. In other words, there was an increase of a gradual nature year by year which reflected the increase on the business side of our imports and exports. For the year ending 1975 it is taking a traumatic jump which, if this Bill becomes an Act, will amount to over R200 million more—in one fell swoop. Whereas we had an increase of approximately 10% over the preceding four years, we now have an increase of almost 25% over the previous estimates and this will probably result in the receipt of an additional R100 million, If not more, if it follows the pattern of past years. It could be more because of the escalating basic costs of goods which come into the country. I say immediately that unfortunately this particular Bill is going to have very severe inflationary effects on the country. I do not regard the protection as protection against dumping. I must say that I am very surprised, in fact I am almost startled, that the hon. member, who fortunately has not been dumped himself but is now the chief spokesman outside the Executive on finance matters, has the effrontery to call the protection afforded to the textile industry as being due to dumping when it is in fact far from it. If I may be permitted to say so, I think that some panic-action was taken at this particular stage and that the fullest consideration was not given to the implications which this may have on the textile industry in our country. One only has to talk to people who have invested their capital in the textile industry. It is not a case of one or two factories being faced by factors completely outside the question of protection from imported goods, but by factors within the country where the inventories of these large supermarkets which deal with mass sales to the public have in some cases been reduced by 10%, representing an amount of nearly R15 million in their inventories. If one particular supermarket reduces its inventory by between 10% and 15%, one must realize what a rippling effect it has right throughout the industry. If you get it in half a dozen supermarkets—and textiles are involved to a considerable extent—one can realize the rippling effect it will have. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that it is facing severe competition from imported goods. Far from it! There was the speculation in a misguided Press, to which the hon. the Minister succumbed almost immediately, that there may be unemployment. He forgets, of course, the shades of the Germiston clothing industry which the Government destroyed in 1959 without even the slightest thought as to what its effect on the country would be. Here they introduce a protective measure which is not aimed at protecting an industry on the basis suggested by the hon. member who has just sat down. On the contrary, the textile industry is a well-established industry and the cause of the slight set-back has nothing whatsoever to do with competition from abroad. However, without giving it the fullest consideration they have once again stepped right in where a more reasonable consideration should perhaps have prevailed. That is the point of view I want to express and I do not do so in the sense of carping criticism; I do so because of authentic information given to me by industrialists who are perfectly prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister. I had an offer today from a person—I am prepared to give the hon. the Minister the name of that person and to introduce him to the hon. the Minister—who is prepared to tell him of the vital effect it will have on the textile industry and consequently on the man in the street from the point of view of inflation, the very man in the street who is supposed to be assisted by this particular protection according to the hon. member for Paarl.

Who are you trying to protect anyway?

The whole position is entirely wrong. As the hon. member for Constantia rightly said, it all depends on the question of fashions. Just think, for instance, what the position would be if the textile industry in this country wanted to maintain its production of crimplene which is regarded in South Africa as completely old-fashioned, or if it wanted to maintain its production of woven gaberdine textiles, which are subject to a nine-month delay and cannot therefore meet the change of fashion. He must realize that there are very many other factors at work in the fashion life of the textile industry in the country. If we are to go not by what the Board of Trade has suggested but by what we have heard from the Government spokesmen so far, I suggest the methods are very crude and have no sense of sophistication about them. The people in the industry complain that the local industry is not sufficiently fashion orientated yet to be able to meet the variety that is required in a country such as ours. The local industry is today producing for what we call the young market. When we talk of the young market, we do not talk only of teenagers but even of members of this House including the senior members who endeavour to be fashion orientated in their choice of suits. I have seen some of the hon. members coming out of famous stores such as Mens, Sirs and Deans. The young market is today the prevalent market in the textile industry.

What is the effect of this duty? It is not only very heavy but, as has been pointed out, it has in fact doubled the cost. What is more, it affects almost 80% of the textile industry, because the textile industry essentially must cater for the fashion market; it has no ordinary medium of catering to a uniform, regimented public. It is dependent on a public which is very fashion orientated. This fashion consciousness is not only found amongst the sophisticated Whites of this country but amongst every race, section and group in South Africa. There is another effect I want to mention. A further effect of the imposition of these particular duties is that is has caught short many importers who will be unable even to clear their goods at the ports because they will be unable financially to meet the commitments of the duties. We have had some excellent examples on this count from the hon. member for Constantia, examples which can be multiplied since he has given only small figures. If one takes large industries, one will find that the duties are multiplied considerably. This is one of the contributing factors in the increase of nearly 30% or over R200 million over the last seven years in the estimates for customs and excise. One particular industry specifically asked me to mention this to the hon. the Minister, who is regarded as being almost lyrical in his linguistic expressions, be it in one language or the other. They said I must tell the hon. the Minister that they are not dealing in potatoes, but in fashions, and that it is a very important difference. They say it is the factories that make the garments, and they are unable to resist this particular difficulty. They say further that manufacturers of materials—they are referring to the local industry—cannot dictate to the creators of fashions and the manufacturers of fashion goods. That is a matter which they feel must be borne in mind.

Do not get so excited, Hymie.

No, Cas, do not be in such a hurry. The people who are going to be affected, are the people in the street. The importers tell me further that they will unfortunately still be obliged to import the goods. They will still be obliged to pay their heavy duties, because they must cater for the demand. The further tragedy of the situation is that the young people will not buy cheaper goods, because of the uniformity of pattern. They will buy the imported materials, which are made up here, to meet the fashion of the day, and pay more. This is where the spiral of inflation will continue to go ahead. This is an indisputable fact. It does not matter what the protests of the Government may be; they will not stop human nature from exerting itself in this way. They say that no young girl will be prepared to wear uniform fashions. They will want to wear the fashion of the day. The fashions change, and they will rather use their earnings to spend a larger amount on fashionable goods than support what is regarded by the Government smugly as the uniform market which they feel the public must support.

Having dealt with that particular issue, to indicate what inflationary effect this particular Bill can have, let me talk further about the sales tax. It is all very well to say that we have debated this question before, but we have through all the years said to the Government that perhaps the unkindest cut of all was not to cut the sales tax, but to have imposed the sales tax which has cut into the income of the community. That, we felt, was an undue imposition. If one looks at the situation today as against what it was when the sales tax was first imposed, we find that we have a surplus of over R700 million, nearly 15% of the total budget. This is one of the most remarkable and spectacular surpluses we have had in the history of this country in figures. It has extensive ramifications. It is an enormous surplus. The public is sufficiently burdened in every way by the cost of living. There are people suffering from malnutrition. I do not want to go into all the details. You cannot get butter today, for instance.

Order!

No, Sir, I am resisting the temptation.

This is not an agricultural debate.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you, I am resisting the temptation. I merely want to say that we believe that if the sales tax is to be dealt with at all in this Bill, it should have been eliminated. This Bill should have provided for the sales tax on goods to be suspended, or that some goods should be free from sales tax, in the same way as there have been reductions on some items. This is something which we always have believed should never have taken place. For that reason we do not like even the reduction in the amount. The tax should never have been imposed at all.

Do not spoil a good speech; sit down now.

I am not going to spoil this speech. I am going to tell you something more. I just want to conclude with one fact.

You are overindulging.

No, I will confirm what my hon. colleagues have said in years past. A Bill of this nature is something which normally demands and warrants no controversy at all. It is one of the essentials of our sources of revenue. For that reason, we accept the principle, and we move along with the State in providing the necessary funds. However, we will merely say one thing: Far more perspicacity should have been employed in dealing with aspects of taxation through this particular means than has been displayed hitherto by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am only going to deal with one facet of this Bill, namely the textile duties. The hon. the Minister will know as well as I do that there is a vast range of products under discussion all of which are subject to some degree of taxation or another. The hon. the Minister will also know that the trouble with this kind of system of protection is that it protects the inefficient as well as the efficient and it is therefore extremely important for the future development of the economic welfare of South Africa and all its inhabitants that these should be confined as much as possible to strategic industries or to infant industries during the pangs of their birth and until they are established. The hon. the Minister will also know that South Africa cannot stand on its own and that trade is by definition a two-way affair, i.e. it needs two parties to effect an agreement. The hon. the Minister will also know that South Africa only has 25 million people living in the country but the actual market is of course less than that, both because of the stage of economic development at which South Africa is and more particularly as a result of the policies of this Government. South Africa can therefore not expect to compete with certain particular overseas industries. The particular industries to which I refer are those which rely on economy of scale. Quite simply South Africa does not have a large enough population to compete with certain products which require a much larger market than we have. Clearly, therefore, to that extent people will operate within the Common Market or inside the United States or even inside Japan and are going to have a continued advantage over this country. It must be very clear to us that these increases which the hon. the Minister has introduced are going to increase the price for all South Africans, by a very substantial margin in a number of cases. In short, as the hon. member for Jeppe has said, they are going to add to the fires of inflation. This is interesting, because the Government cannot this time say that it is international inflation. This is as a result of a simple decision made by the Government. The case needs to be very compelling, because one would assume that the offer of cheaper goods to the public of South Africa and the ability to buy their clothes more cheaply than they now can would be something to be welcomed, an end devoutly to be desired. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to give us a much fuller explanation of why we have these extraordinarily large increases, in some cases of well over 1 000%, because, as I have said, these duties are going to raise the cost of clothing to the average South African by the order of 20% to 40%. In particular it is the very products at the lower end of the price range and at the lower end of the scale where the consumers are worst placed and will be the hardest hit. I think those people are entitled to ask why this Government feels that they should not be able to buy shirts and other items of clothing more cheaply than they can buy them now even before the sales duties go up. They could in fact do that, but this is simply what this Government is setting its face against. If a shirt costs R9 in a shop today, if we imported these materials from overseas the average consumer in South Africa will be able to buy it at considerably less. But the hon. the Minister is putting a very large duty on this material so that the average consumer in South Africa will be extraordinarily lucky if he can buy that shirt for less than R10 or R11.

If you cannot give them bread, give them cake!

I think the only defence the Government may use, and this I find hard to believe, is that clothing can be described as a strategic industry. The hon. member for Jeppe has said that it is an established industry and presumably the only possible justification for the hon. the Minister is that if we do not levy these duties we are going to have unemployment. I am against unemployment, but there are a great number of alternatives open to the Government. A figure of 2 000 people has been mentioned. These workers can readily be absorbed elsewhere and new industries can be built. Everybody in South Africa will then be able to take advantage of the cheaper supplies. If the Government is also worried about the transitional phase, why does he not consider introducing a system whereby one has unemployment insurance, which is done in most other developed countries?

The final thing that really worries me is that there is no assurance that this Government is going to be successful with its policy. Price increases such as these envisaged in this Bill are almost certainly going to depress the volume of purchases as far as clothing is concerned. This is going to be much more than marginal; it is going to be significant. If people stop buying simply because of the price, or decrease their purchases significantly, no amount of duties will help then. The position will rather be the reverse. It will not then affect only the textile manufacturers but the clothing industry as well. We will not then talk of 2 000 people possibly being unemployed because the clothing industry is estimated to employ something of the order of 100 000 people. I do not intend to go into the question of the fashion industry which has been ably argued by hon. members to my right. However, this Government has always said that it is a believer in a mixed economy. By that they have always meant up till now that they believe in private enterprise. If one is a believer in private enterprise, the consumer is entitled to buy where he can get the best value for his money. I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain to me why this Government feels it is necessary for that choice to be taken away from all the inhabitants of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it was conspicuous that the previous speaker did not look up at the gallery as usual. I must assume and conclude from his speech that the people who normally listen to him are not here tonight. I find it surprising that he made a speech tonight from a truly capitalistic point of view, instead of speaking, as he usually does, as the protector of the Black people. I wonder whether he realizes that as far as the textile industry is concerned, the people it employs are mainly Coloured and other non-White workers. He talked about 2 000 people being employed in this industry. I know of one factory alone where 2 400 people are employed. He should know better, and I believe that he does know better. What I am saying does not apply to him only, but to the speakers who preceded him as well. The hon. member for Jeppe said that the hon. the Minister acted as he did because he suddenly took fright and thought that there would be unemployment. In this connection I should like to quote the following from a Tucsa document. It reads as follows—

Those are the people for whose benefit they speak here every day, those people up in the gallery. Tonight it is a different story, however, for we are dealing with legislation introduced by the Government. We know, and it has become general knowledge lately, that even the United Party is not unanimous on this matter. The first speaker on that side, the hon. member for Constantia, said that he preferred tariff control to import control. The fact is that tariff control leads to an increase in prices while import control keeps prices on the same level. Then the hon. member for Jeppe said that he took the opposite view. He felt that we should not increase prices; that is exactly what tariff control encourages.

It is not the opposite.

What they are forgetting, however, is that there is no question of an increase in prices here. The textile industry did not ask that prices should be increased.

Shame!

They only asked to be protected from these textiles that are entering our country. At one stage a whole shipload of the stuff had arrived here. We are not only concerned with the prices either. We know that the whole world has to contend with financial problems. People have bought up stocks and today they have a surplus on their hands. They are trying to get rid of it, and at the best prices they can get. If a whole shipload arrives here, we may realize what a considerable effect this must have on our own industry. Our own industry does not only comprise the workers in the factories; it comprises the workers on the farms as well. Cotton is being grown there and that is the cotton that is being processed here. It goes much deeper than that. Nor is it a question of temporary unemployment. We must provide for the future. We may allow that factory to go out of business today and place those workers in new industries, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North said, but if world market prices were to rise again next year, as happened a year ago, what would the position be then? Then we would have to import at the prices dictated to us by the outside world, and we are not the darling of the world.

Is that so?

That is so, and I think we all realize it. The time has come for us to realize that we must protect our own industries in our own country. Sir, the hon. the Minister told us that these measures had to be taken very urgently. He said that new investigations would be conducted, and they will be. We concede that there are certain fabrics which are not manufactured here which will be more expensive as a result of these new levies. That is so, and we do not want to argue the point. But these things can be rectified. We are concerned here with the protection of our own textile industry and with that alone.

Sir, allow me to say to the hon. the Minister in conclusion that we are grateful for the concessions which have once again been made in respect of the sales tax. Personally I believe that this is a good form of taxation. I believe that the concessions that have been made in respect of household goods in particular are very welcome. Sir, this is the one tax in respect of which one is able to decide for oneself whether one wants to pay it or not; it is the one tax which promotes saving. There are many things we can do without, if we want to. Sir, just look at the turnover figure in the retail trade during the past week; it was a new record. People had received salary increases and they were prepared to spend their increases straight away. Was there a single one of them who thought of saving it? This is the only way in which we can save after all, for we can decide for ourselves that we are not going to pay that sales tax. Nevertheless, although I am in favour of the tax, I want to express the thanks of my voters for the fact that concessions have in fact been made in respect of household goods in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to this debate. A variety of sentiments were expressed here. I want to thank my hon. colleagues on this side of the House, the hon. members for Paarl and Losberg, most sincerely for their support. I realized, of course, that hon. members of the Opposition would criticize us wherever they were able to do so. They had to use their imaginations a great deal to be able to do so, but I shall try to reply to the points they have raised here.

†Sir, the hon. member for Constantia made a number of points. I would not like to say that I disagree with some of his general statements on policy. I shall be dealing more fully, I hope, with the question of protection as a policy when my Vote comes under consideration. The hon. member asked that we should print the explanatory memorandum. I will look into that and if it is at all practicable I will certainly have it done. I can see the merit of the hon. member’s suggestion. Sir, then he mentioned the variety and number of the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries.

*Sir, in referring to the Board of Trade and Industries I should like to associate myself immediately with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Paarl when he had some commendable things to say about this Board. I do not know whether any other statutory board in South Africa is working harder than the Board of Trade and Industries at the moment.

†The hon. member referred to the great variety and the number of the recommendations of the board. Well, this is true. This is partly due to the fact that the period covered by the board’s investigations is longer than usual; I think the hon. member appreciated that point; and then, of course, we are trying to promote import replacement through tariff policy and we are also trying to reduce and eliminate import control through tariff policy. Sir, all these things add up to a large number of investigations and therefore a large number of recommendations from the board.

Sir, then the hon. member mentioned the taxation proposals on textiles. This was also referred to by the hon. member for Jeppe and I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The question of sales duties was also mentioned and I shall deal briefly with the question of duties on textiles, which were proposed by the hon. the Minister of Finance recently and which now, of course, form part of the Bill before us. Mr. Speaker, the position is not quite as simple as it is made out to be. Of course, a flood of cheap imports was an important factor. This is a simple fact, and our own industry here was being hit extremely hard. I would like to correct the impression that the hon. member for Jeppe has created, i.e. that we panicked. Of course he got that from one of the members of the clothing industry who spoke at the recent FCI meeting in those terms, rather irresponsibly.

You did panic.

If the hon. member had taken the trouble to go into this, he would have found that we had been going into these measures and into the state of this industry for a number of months, working really almost night and day, and that the Board of Trade and Industries, in a short time, did a magnificent job. But they have not completed their longer-term investigation. They are still busy with it now. And let me say at once that if it should be necessary in the light of the very full investigation that the Board of Trade and Industries is making to amend any of these individual duties, then of course we shall do so. But the steps we took after a very careful study were absolutely essential, in my judgment and in that of the Department of Industries. You know, Sir, the industry we are dealing with, the textile industry, is not something which can be dealt with as something small and unimportant. The amount invested in this industry is more than R450 million, on a conservative estimate. As has been said here, the employment is fast approaching 100 000 and I would like to point out that because of the very big increase in the imports of cheap textiles, for various reasons—I may mention that the imports increased by 80% in the first five months of this year alone compared with the corresponding period last year—the prices overseas dropped for various reasons. There had been overstocking and these inventories had to be liquidated. Prices dropped very substantially and our own industry was hit very hard. The hon. member for Johannesburg North talks very glibly about the great advantages of cheap imports. Certainly, but is it our duty to look first at the interests of exporters of cheap goods to South Africa, or is it our duty to look primarily to the interests of a very fine industry established many years ago in South Africa, already employing 100 000 people?

Primarily you must look at the consumer.

Yes, of course, you look at the consumer, but if we do not encourage production the consumer will be the first to suffer. Because do not imagine that you will simply continue to get cheap imports. [Interjections.] It is very easy to say we must look at the consumer and look at the exporters’ interests, those who can export to South Africa at cheap prices, but what about the home industry which has been built up over many years into a major industry? We are not prepared simply to see this industry go out of action. What has now happened in Australia?

Would the Minister tell me whether he considers it possible for South Africa to be entirely self-sufficient or not?

That is taking an absolutely extreme view. It is not a question of whether you are self-sufficient. Over the years there has been built up a very careful balance between home production and imports and that balance has been very substantially disturbed in recent months in favour of imports. We are restoring that balance in the interests of the industry in South Africa. That is the position. Let us just look at Australia. Australia is, after all, a very good comparison. Australia has also built up a textile industry. It is bigger than ours in terms of employment but it is no more important in relation to the total economy. What has been happening in Australia? I have a report here which I received last week. The report states the following—

This is in the last month or two. They say that they have fired workers and the forecasts are—

That is the position in Australia because they did not take action in time against cheap imports from Japan and elsewhere. The Australian Government is now moving to put a complete ban, a complete prohibition on all imports of textiles from Japan. That is import control. We are not using import control, however. We are using tariffs, a much more flexible method, one which allows us to continue to use the market mechanism. One is not putting an absolute blanket ban on imports but is regulating imports through the price system. Prices will go up, of course; we know that. When customs duties are imposed one is immediately invoking higher costs. What is the long-term effect, however, in terms of keeping an industry going and stimulating it? It is not a simple matter of saying that one is going to have a less efficient industry. I could also mention the United States, which has the strongest economy in the world. In this connection I quote the following—

That is import control, something which we have not imposed. Had we not taken action, let me give hon. members the assurance that at this moment there would not have been hundreds unemployed in this industry, but thousands. The majority of those would have been Black. The first people to kick up the devil’s own din would be the Opposition and my friends in the Progressive Party. [Interjections.] That is the first thing that would have happened. Sir, we have taken a step which I believe to be absolutely correct. In fact, I do not think there was any alternative. I am sure we had to do this. Why should prices rise as high as the dire forecasts of some people? I just want to remind my hon. friends opposite that when there was that big drop in the price of textile imports, clothing prices did not come down. Why did some of these manufacturers not bring down their prices when they were able to import so cheaply

Why did you not investigate that industry?

I am asking why did they not do so?

Have you investigated that industry?

If they were doing so well then surely they can weather these difficulties for a while. If they are in trouble, however, they can come to us. I have been told that by yesterday we had had no specific representations from the clothing industry. They apparently asked the Board of Trade and Industry to see their representatives but nothing specific has yet been put before us by the clothing industry. If that industry, as a South African industry, has any genuine difficulties they would also be treated sympathetically on the facts. There will be an investigation. That is absolutely so. This talk, however, that the prices are suddenly going to shoot up, is unfounded. Why did the prices then not come down when import tariffs were so low?

Has the hon. the Minister had representations from the national body for the clothing industry in regard to these duties

From whom?

Has the Minister had any representations?

No, I have not. The only representation I had was in respect of goods on the water. I think my hon. friend mentioned that point. I was asked to give exemption or to remove the duties imposed by the taxation proposals for textiles on the water or where irrevocable letters of credit had been issued. Unfortunately I cannot do so because I have no discretion in the matter at all. On the other hand, if you do allow that sort of thing you could easily discriminate against other existing manufacturers. So one has to be very careful with that as well.

I do not want to deal with all the points raised by the hon. member for Constantia. I have listened to his views with interest. He says that we must not encourage unproductive industries by a tariff policy and we agree with that. Then he mentioned buckles. He simply mentioned this in passing. I cannot think at the moment what a “buckle” is called in Afrikaans.

“Gespes.”

He simply mentioned buckles here in passing. It is true that the buckle industry is a small industry, but what is a small industry today can become a big industry tomorrow. Some of our small industries are extremely important. You cannot do without buckles. That is the point. While we are talking about efficiency and the need to reduce costs, I should like to remind the hon. member of what old Adam Smith said. He used to say that the surest way to have competition is to have a large number of small firms operating. Therefore, we must not look too much askance at buckles, because it is quite an important industry.

Then we heard quite a bit about fashion changes and the need for variety in fashions. The hon. member for Jeppe was quite eloquent on the need to ensure that we have a wide variety of fashions in the field of clothing and materials. If the hon. member is so worried about costs, what will be more calculated to put up costs than to go in for this big variety of fashion goods for which the hon. member is pleading?

But fashion demands it.

Now he says it is a matter of demand, while I am referring to inflation. The hon. member says we have to prevent these measures from causing inflation, but he nevertheless wants to have a large variety of expensive goods. This is something which will be highly inflationary.

It is as old as mankind itself.

Then, of course, I want to say that when you are dealing with tariff policy or with import policy you have to bear in mind the state of your current account, your balance of payments and, as I have already mentioned, employment. These things all have to be looked at. One cannot look at these things in isolation. When you look at all these things, you have to form a balance. I say again that for years we have had a proper carefully worked out balance between imports and the production of these goods. That whole balance has been very badly disturbed and a very serious disequilibrium has been brought about.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister believe that uniformity in fashion is advisable in this industry in our country?

No, I did not say that. Here we have an example of when one makes a statement one is immediately faced with an extreme case. I did not talk about uniformity. I was talking about a reasonable balance. When the hon. member puts the emphasis on fashion …

Yes.

… and on variety then I say he is advocating a measure which will in practice push up inflation. That is the point.

In regard to sales duties, the hon. member said he would deal with it more specifically in the Committee Stage, but generally speaking I understood him to say that we should abolish sales duties. Is that correct?

That is right.

If we abolish sales duties we axe going to forfeit R138 million in revenue. That is a lot of money. The hon. member must tell us how he proposes to replace that. The Government is under very strong pressure to provide more and more infrastructure and to provide more and more essential services. If you are suddenly going to deprive the Government of say R140 million of revenue, you must find an alternative source, like putting up the income tax.

You have enough. You have an enormous surplus.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville is not here. In the Budget debate he argued with me and said that it was a deficit Budget. Do hon. members remember that? Just look up his Hansard and you will find that he said that it was a deficit Budget.

If the hon. member made a mistake, the hon. the Minister must not think he is right.

Order! The hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister a reasonable chance.

That is the first point. In dealing with sales duties or sales taxes, I have certain figures here.

*I have figures here which may interest the House. On 17 November 1972 concessions amounting to approximately R20 million were made in respect of sales duty. That was about two years ago. On 29 February 1973 further concessions amounting to approximately R13 million were made. On 24 August of last year concessions were made by means of a reduction to the amount of R30 million. On 18 February 1974 further concessions amounting to R16 million were made, and on 15 Augustus 1974 further concessions amounting to R16 million were made, and cessions totalling approximately R87 million have therefore been made.

These were the concessions that have been made over a period of little less than two years. I can show hon. members how the sales have dropped on a percentage basis. In the case of table and kitchen utensils and domestic sanitary and toiletries, and so on, the sales duty was 15%. It was then reduced to 10%. Today it is 5%. As far as mattresses, table cloths, air-cushions and similar domestic articles are concerned, the sales duty was 15%. Today it is 5%. In respect of a variety of articles I may mention the following reductions: 25% to 15%; 15% to 5%; 30% to 20%; again, 15% to 5%. On spices, confectionery, chocolates, biscuits, and so on, the sales duty was 10%, but has now been removed altogether. My hon. friend opposite knows says that they want no sales duty at all. As I have indicated a moment ago, we have eased considerably the burden sales duty places on the consumer. I think we have really done a great deal of good in that respect. I have dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Jeppe, to the effect that there should be a greater variety of these goods. I think I have also dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I do not want to keep the House too long. I think my comments have covered most of the arguments that have been raised. I just want to say again: As far as the textile industry is concerned, we have acted in a careful and circumspect way. The impression that we have panicked and acted too hastily, is absolutely wrong. That impression should be eliminated. I can assure hon. members that we had no alternative. The steps we have taken, were the correct steps. I am quite sure that this will be proved to us during the months that lay ahead because even at this early stage, after only a few weeks, this industry is showing signs of becoming more stable; confidence has been restored and the majority of the people who had to resign, have been reemployed. All this is the result of the speedy action taken by the Government.

†I think we acted timeously, judiciously and discerningly. That is why I move the Second Reading with confidence.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1:

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we believe it is our duty as an Opposition to high-light this evening the intolerable burden which is being placed upon the consumer, the man in the street. During the past years, since the introduction of the sales tax, we have been appealing to the hon. the Minister of Finance to reduce in individual instances the undue weight of this burden. Today we see that we have been unsuccessful so far. Sir, we have no other recourse than a flat rejection of all the sales duties which are listed in the very considerable schedule to which I refer. For that reason I move as an amendment—

This does amount to a flat rejection of the sales duties listed. It will cost the Government in the region of R50 million. We believe that, only since the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance, it has been proved that all his endeavours to halt inflation have been completely unsuccessful. Wholesale indices are going haywire; retail price indices are skyrocketing, and the burden becomes ever greater. For that reason we call for a dramatic gesture, and this is the gesture we make.

However, I do want to draw attention to the fact that, after our last appeal to the hon. the Minister, he has made a number of concessions. I think that the housewife, and even the children, will be glad to see that there have been concessions as regards such items as spices, sugar, chocolates, dry biscuits and condiments. The hon. the Minister has been realistic in reducing the sales duty on perfumes again as a gesture to the fair folk, but we still see that on matches, the one item which is used universally by every section of the population, we have a sales duty of 5%. We believe that this duty should have been removed a long time ago. On all other household implements which have a direct bearing on the cost of living, the duties are still being enforced. As the hon. the Minister has said, the reductions on the sales tax range from 30% to 25%, and 20% to 15% to 15% to 10%. But how, in this day and age, can the hon. the Minister justify sales duties on such household articles as sanitary and toilet ware, wall cabinets, shop bags, travel goods and other such items? Today we appeal to the hon. the Minister to be realistic. The prices, because of the energy crisis throughout the world have gone so high that the public can hardly afford essential commodities even without these duties. We have always believed the sales tax was originally initiated in order to reduce the tax bulge in personal income tax. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister of Finance did not believe that there should be a vacuum in the economics of politics, and he immediately created a sales tax which was not designed to reduce a tax bulge, but to fatten the State coffers. Year after year we produce surpluses of almost 100% more than the tax budgeted for, and again the man in the street has to suffer. In a lighter vein, there appears in this Budget to be something for everybody. I see that for the men there is a slight reduction in the price of razors and razor blades, for those who need them. When you realize that a shave today costs R1 in a barber shop, you appreciate very well how much one does need these things. There has also been a reduction in the sales duty on scissors, so that we can prune our Budget more effectively today. There has also been a reduction on pruning shears and here again, the hon. the Minister has shown some humanity.

I now want to deal with the most important sales duty of all as far as this country is concerned, namely sales duty item No. 147.00 in so far as it refers to sales duty on motor vehicles. From the farmer to the industrialist and the private owner it is recognized today that motor vehicles are no longer a luxury item. The head of the Chrysler organization had the following to say in this regard—

Do you realize. Sir, that today the price of a motor vehicle is increasing at the rate of R50 per month in the medium-sized car category? The motorcar is becoming inordinately expensive and as has been indicated in a previous debate, we have had to become a nation of bakkie drivers, merely because of the illogical discrimination in sales tax, whereby sales tax has been removed entirely from the bakkie and left on the passenger vehicle. We are driving bakkies and because these bakkies are largely imported there is a drain on our foreign reserves. It defeats its own object. The manufacture of cars in their entirety is reduced in volume, which drives up the price. In this way the car is so expensive that a car crisis is about to develop at the manufacturing level. It is not because of this tax but because of the fact that under the present credit crises the hire-purchase restrictions are making it almost impossible for garages to finance the necessary paper. We call for a complete removal of this tax. If we do so, we would reduce the price of the average car to the public by some R200 to R400 immediately, according to the classification of the car. I think it should be realized that the motor industry is a growth catalyst. At a time when we are all expressing fears of unemployment we do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Under this particular category, namely sales duty item No. 147.000, paragraphs (1) and (2) of tariff heading No. 87.02 are being substituted in terms of which the sales duty on cars costing more than R2 250 and less than R2 400 has been reduced from 12,5% to 7,5%. Again we believe that the Government is doing too little too late. Let the Government take the advice of the motor industry, an industry which is headed by industrialists who know what they are about, where the welfare of South Africa lies and who know what the consumer wants to pay. Let him realize that the motor industry is a growth catalyst and let him reduce this tax to zero forthwith. By doing that he will not damage the industry but recognize the fact that the consumer is sovereign and he will help the most important category in the country, namely the farmer. He must also realize that the transport industry is one of the greatest contributors to inflation. Public transport and the vehicle of the man in the street are items which have a direct influence on inflation. We are moving this amendment because we believe that the Government has not made a real gesture in practical terms in combating inflation. It has not proved, since the Budget speech, that it has introduced any measures which are combating inflation. If it is its intention to help the man in the street, then in this particular instance of sales duty items which cover a fairly wide field which, in most cases, are items of necessity and not of luxury, the complete removal would indicate the mood in which the country is in at the moment and the mood in which the United Party believes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in his motion to delete these percentages of tax under the heading “Rate of sales duty”. The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading took some time and was at pains to tell us by how much he has reduced the sales tax in many cases. While he was speaking I interjected and said: “Big deal!” That is just what I mean. What is the big deal he has boasted about tonight? Do hon. members know what it amounts to? If I must accept what the hon. the Minister of Finance said in his Budget speech, all these concessions about which the hon. the Minister boasted tonight total R8,7 million. That is the concession he has granted to the people of South Africa, an amount of R8,7 million.

In a Budget of over R5 000 million.

Let us forget about the total of the Budget; let us talk just about sales tax. The concessions which were granted by the hon. the Minister of Finance total R8,7 million and that is what this hon. Minister comes and boasts about tonight. Do hon. members know what they anticipated they would collect from sales duties? I wish to refer to R.P. 5 of 1974, the Estimate of Revenue for the financial year ending 31 March 1975, which says that an amount of R197 250 000 will be received from sales duties during this year. Therefore this magnificent concession of the Government totalling R8,7 million is less than 3%. That is what this hon. Minister is boasting about! He says that we must look at what a wonderful boy he is and what a wonderful Government we have. He says we must look how they are helping the man in the street. [Interjections.]

Order!

He said we must just look at what wonderful guys they are. His colleague, the hon. member for Losberg, who unfortunately is not here …

If you carry on like that again I am leaving!

Come on, go. It does not matter.

I shall not miss anything.

The hon. member for Losberg who unfortunately is not here, said that this is one tax about which the taxpayer can decide whether he wants to pay it or not, that you do not have to pay this tax. The decision is yours, totally yours. He said you do not have to pay this tax at all. You can just go without.

Buy a “beshu”!

As my hon. friend from Mooi River says, buy a “beshu”.

Tell him what it is, Warwick.

Must I tell him what a “beshu” is? What does the hon. member for Losberg mean when he says that this is a tax about which we can decide whether we want to pay it or not, and that we do not have to pay it? It means that you can decide, if you like, to have carpets in your house. You do not have to have carpets; oh no, we can go back to the old cow-dung smeared floors again because even the timber from which floors are made is also subject to sales tax. We need not have any furniture, because every item of furniture today is subject to sales tax. If you do not want to pay this tax, you must not have any furniture. You can go back and sit on paraffin boxes. Mind you, paraffin does not come in boxes any more! Well, then you have nothing to sit on, but you can sit on your haunches. You only have to come to toilet requisites. There will be a tremendous run on newspapers because newspapers might be used for the function for which they really are designed instead of what they are used for today, especially at a price of seven cents. Let us go further. My hon. friend from Cape Town Gardens mentioned razors. He said that he has a cheaper shave than he had before but my hon. friend from Losberg says that you need not shave. He says that you need not pay the tax because you need not buy any razors or any blades. He said you need not shave at all. Of course, you need not buy any cutlery. You need not buy any kitchen utensils or table linen or bath-plugs …

You can always put your foot in the plug-hole.

… or wooden spoons or stoves or bedding or mattresses if you do not want to pay this tax; you can sleep on the floor; it does not matter; you can eat with your hands; you need not have a radio; you can be late for your appointment; you need not buy a watch for that also carries a sales tax.

As long as you have a Kruithoring, who cares?

Of course, when we think of what happens outside in the garden, we realize that every item we use, the garden spade, the fork, the lawnmower, all carry this tax. We can just have jungles around our homes because we need not pay this tax. I see that the hon. member for Losberg has just come into the Chamber. I hope that one of his colleagues will tell him about what I have been saying. I sincerely hope that his house will not be of the nature of the house I have tried to describe here. I sincerely hope that there will be facilities for washing in his house, that he will have toilet paper, that he will have furniture and that he will have cutlery, and I hope that he enjoys paying the sales tax on those items. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is a spoil-sport. Does he pay the sales tax or does he choose not to pay it? Is he going to be a spoil-sport to his children on 5 November; is he going to buy them some fireworks? [Interjections.] Let us hear from the hon. member. Is he going to choose not to pay the tax? Shame, poor children! What about the children of other hon. members on that side? Are hon. members going to buy them fireworks? Are they going to celebrate Guy Fawkes without fireworks? [Interjections.] Are they not going to celebrate Guy Fawkes? Oh, well, they are all “verkramp” anyway! What can we expect from them? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested to me that the hon. member will have to drink his coffee out of a paper cup. Unfortunately, that also has a sales tax. So he cannot even drink it out of a paper cup! But all joking aside, Sir, this is a very, very serious matter.

I want to turn to another item and I want to support what has been said here before by other hon. members. It is not the people of South Africa who can afford to pay these taxes who are the ones hardest hit. It is an unfortunate facet of the taxation proposals of this Government that almost invariably it is the people in the lowest income groups who are hit hardest. Among the White people and particularly among the African people there is one thing that is completely indispensable to them as things are today and that is a stove. A stove is completely indispensable to everyone. There is no longer the superabundance of firewood that we have had in the past; their living conditions have changed to such an extent that even if they had firewood, it is not suitable for cooking and heating. Today, almost every Black family is dependent upon having a pressure stove or, as it is more commonly known, a primus stove. Over the past four years, in every single year there has been an increase in the sales duty on pressure stoves. There is one aspect of this matter to which I particularly want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. The tax on a pressure stove was 15%, that is 15% on the cost price. This duty has now been increased to 20%. The item number is 73.36.15. This does not just mean an increase of 33% in the sales duty because, as the hon. the Minister knows, the price of these stoves has gone up tremendously in the past 12 months, not to mention the cost of the fuel. What has happened here is that the cost of that stove has increased. The Government is already drawing more in sales duty than it anticipated it would draw at the time that it imposed this duty of 15%. Now it is imposing a duty of 20% on an enhanced value. Is it any wonder then that I say that it is always the lowest income group, the poorest people, who are hit by these additional tariffs?

I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of the amendment moved by my hon. friend the member for Cape Town Gardens. I hope that he will accept it because if he does, it will save a great deal of debate in this House. We cannot accept these sales duties as detailed in these schedules. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister particularly to reconsider the items dealing with pressure stoves because this is something that hits almost every family. Unfortunately, the quality of these items today is such that they have to be replaced almost annually. The hon. the Minister is hitting every one of those families every year, because they have to buy a new pressure stove on which the Government is taking 20% of the cost price in the form of sales duty.

Mr. Chairman, I am fairly sure that the hon. the Minister is not going to accept this amendment. In terms of his amendment the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is asking for the deletion of all sales duties. It is calculated that the sales duties will net approximately R197 million. If the hon. the Minister is to give up all of a sudden a source of revenue to the value of R197 million, his whole Budget will be upset. It will be thrown completely out of gear. Hon. members opposite kicked up a big fuss about the sales duties which allegedly bear down so heavily on the poor. Of course, they have omitted to point out that there are quite a number of sales duty items which are in fact being abolished by the Bill before us. This is over and above all the items which were abolished previously. Then we still have all the items on which there has never been any sales duty, such as all food except canned food. Not all foods are subject to sales duties. The hon. the Minister has now introduced this Bill and has also abolished the sales duty on canned food. Take for instance tariff item 134.00. This item includes sugar confectionery, chocolate, dry biscuits, preserved vegetables and fruit, mustard, sauces, mixed condiments, etc. In this Bill the hon. the Minister has completely abolished this sales duty. There are many examples of items in respect of which the sales duty is being abolished completely by this Bill, such as sails, tarpaulins and tents, rubber tyres and tubes, pruning, garden and other shears for agricultural purposes, cutlery, spoons, forks and knives. These are being exempted entirely. Then we also have sewing machines, etc. Then we also have the very interesting example of the sales duty on gramophone records which are aimed at teaching people languages. This is a splendid example of progressive thinking, for the old saying goes: “The more tongues a man knows, the more of a man he is.” Now the sales duty on these gramophone records is also being abolished. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens now wants a whole series of sales duties on items in the motor trade to be abolished. Of course, we understand why he wants this done. All of us know exactly why he specifically wants the sales duty on motor vehicles to be abolished. The basic fact is this: We cannot give up R190 million without obtaining it from some other source so as to make our Estimates balance. If we have to give up this sales duty completely, it means that we have to give up R190 million in revenue. What do hon. members opposite want in its place? [Interjections.] I am talking about Part III of Schedule I. It is almost as if the U.P. wants to cast a reflection on the Chair by suggesting that the Chair does not know what to allow. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.