With the leave of the House, I would like to make the following statement:

When his Vote was under discussion in the Assembly, the Hon. the Prime Minister said, inter alia, regarding the Orange River Development Project, that, while the Department of Water Affairs was fully responsible for the control and construction of the dams and canals, the Government as a whole would accept the responsibility for, and take control of, further and wider planning and development of the project.

I, therefore, now have pleasure in informing the Honourable House that the Government has decided to appoint a standing Cabinet Committee for the Orange River Development Project. The Committee will consist of the Ministers responsible for all those State Departments which are involved in the numerous aspects of the project and in the proper execution and development thereof; namely, the Ministers of Lands, Finance, Transport, Water Affairs and Agricultural Technical Services, Economic Affairs, Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Coloured Affairs and Community Development.

The Cabinet Committee will be responsible for the co-ordination and control of the overall planning of the Orange River Project.

In carrying out this task the Cabinet Committee will be assisted by an Advisory Board under the chairmanship of Dr. D. H. Steyn, who is also chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister In addition, the Advisory Board will consist of—

1. (a) the heads, or their representatives, of the aforementioned State Departments;
2. (b) the Provincial Secretaries of the Cape and the Orange Free State, or their representatives;
3. (c) a representative of the Electricity Supply Commission;
4. (d) a representative of the Industrial Development Corporation;
5. (e) a representative of the Natural Resources Development Council;
6. (f) such individuals, in their personal capacities, as the Cabinet may decide to appoint in view of their experience and ability, of whom one, Dr. H. J. van Eck, has already been nominated.

The office of the chairman of the Advisory Board, who is also the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, will serve as Secretariat for the Cabinet Committee and its Advisory Board.

The Government is convinced that, by instituting this Cabinet Committee with its Advisory Board, a sound foundation has been laid for the most comprehensive co-ordination of all that is of importance, and for the utilization of the best resources in our country, ensuring efficient planning in advance and orderly development in its numerous facets of this most important project in the Republic.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the United Party opposed the introduction of this Bill; we opposed the second reading and we opposed important clauses in the Committee Stage. We shall continue our opposition to this Bill by opposing the third reading. Sir, this Bill is typical of the legislation introduced by the Government over the years affecting the Bantu of this country. Every year we get more and more restrictions applied to them. One wonders how the Minister and his officials can still think of more restrictions after 13 years of restrictions. This particular Bill does not only deal with the urban Bantu, as has been the custom in the past, but it also deals with the rural Bantu. In terms of Clause 1, the foreign Bantu employed in this country are now to be treated as illegal immigrants. We were amazed to hear the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) say that every foreign Bantu in this country was an illegal immigrant. He must know that these foreign Bantu have some document of identity. It seems peculiar to us to say that because he did not get a permit to enter the country and, although he was given an identification document endorsed to the effect that he was working in this country, he was still regarded as an illegal immigrant. Clause 1 places certain restrictions on foreign Bantu and certain obligations on them to get more documents. I do not know how these foreign Bantu can possibly know what is expected of them. As we have pointed out before, these foreign Bantu are not here on holiday; they came here to work. They would not be here had work not been available for them, and had they not been required by the economy of this country. We object to the harsh manner in which they are now being dealt with.

When it comes to our own Bantu in the urban areas, we oppose most strenuously the clause dealing with the housing of domestic servants. We take up the same line which we took up throughout with regard to domestic servants, namely that the local authority should be allowed to decide which domestic servants will be allowed to live in its area of jurisdiction. The local authority is the body best suited to decide that question. If Potchefstroom or Pretoria or Sunnyside want all their domestic servants to live outside the White area, the local authorities can see to it that they do. But why must all the other local authorities be subject to this restriction just because a few local authorities have asked the Minister to introduce such a law? The hon. the Minister was only able to quote, I think, three instances of requests by local authorities for this provision. Yet he is now forcing that law on the whole country. Sir, the local authorities are losing more and more authority.

In terms of Clause 11 the regulations will now be uniform. As was pointed out in the Committee Stage there is some reason why local authorities do not all adopt the regulations which the Department wish them to adopt. The first portion of the clause permits the Minister to publish regulations for general guidance. Why could the clause not end there? Actually I do not think there is any necessity for a clause of this nature because the Minister can in any event advertise the regulations which he wishes municipalities to adopt. But then the clause goes on and (b) makes it obligatory on local authorities to accept those regulations. If the model regulations prepared by the Minister were acceptable to all local authorities they would not hesitate adopting them. As pointed out, Sir, local authorities should be given some discretion. There must be some reason why the local authorities do not all adopt the model regulations as prepared by the East London Municipality. The Minister himself has admitted that he is getting co-operation from different municipalities, that they co-operate in other ways with him, that he is on reasonably good terms with them. He mentioned the Johannesburg Municipality in particular. But he went on to say that the Johannesburg Municipality had not adopted those regulations which he wished them to adopt. He is now forcing them to do so by passing this clause. We say it is quite wrong. In no two municipalities in the country, Sir, are the conditions the same. Conditions vary throughout the country. The municipality itself should therefore be allowed to decide what regulations it wishes to apply. What is worse is this: This Bill goes on and makes it obligatory on municipalities to furnish the Minister with all the resolutions they pass and if the Minister does not like those resolutions he can amend them. As I read the Bill they must submit the resolutions to the Minister even before they have passed them. The municipalities, all these local bodies, are elected. The people serving on these bodies are elected by the people living in that area, and the persons who elected them have entrusted to them the administering of these affairs. Nobody suggests that a local authority should be allowed to flout the laws of the land. The laws passed by this Parliament dictate to municipalities as who should live there, what Bantu should live in their area and that sort of thing. But surely the municipalities can be left to administer those laws themselves. What do we find now? That where local authorities are administering the laws, with more and more Government interference, where the Bantu resent the administration of those laws, the Opposition is blamed—as has happened in the Transkei just recently. The local authorities have to carry out the law with regard to endorsing out of people and the Bantu objected, their leaders said: It is not the Government but the Opposition. The local authority is being blamed. The local authority has to carry out the law, but let the local authority itself decide how it is going to carry out the law. Let them carry it out in the most human way possible. Sir, the municipalities, the councils are being put in a most humiliating position of not being able to pass resolutions without submitting them to the Government. When they pass a resolution they have to submit it to the Minister for him to alter it as he thinks fit. I say that is striking at the very basis of our democratic form of government. Sir, the Minister goes further. He will dictate to the municipalities under this Bill what regulations the municipalities will have to abide by. They will have to abide by those regulations whether they like it or not—regulations dealing with administration. Then the Minister also says: I will consider any resolution passed by your council and if I do not like it, I will amend it too. You have to send me your resolutions. Thirdly he says: I want to give the Bantu some say in local government, and therefore we agreed to establish urban Bantu councils. A law was passed to that effect. The Bantu councils are now going to be established, but he tells them in advance: “If I do not like what they do, I will disestablish them.” That is the effect of Clause 26. I think it is a shocking thing! Those Bantu councils also have elected members on them. There cannot be more selected members than elected members. What is the object of electing a council if the people in the area know and the councilors know that should they in any way dispute Government policy or be critical they may be disestablished? How can you have a council acting fairly and honestly if it knows all the time that its very existence depends on it being a lackey of the Government? Because that is all it means. Unless they do what the Government wants them to do, they will be disestablished. Sir, there is no purpose in telling the Bantu that you are going to give them more say in their own affairs, allow them to control their own municipal affairs—and a great song is being made about this, not only in this country but also overseas that the Bantu are now being allowed to take control of their own affairs—what is the object of telling them all that, and telling the outside world that if at the same time you tell them “If you do anything wrong. I will disestablish you at once”? When the original law was passed to establish the Bantu councils, this provision was not in it. Why were they not told then, when the Bill was passed, what was in store for these councils? I put it to the hon. Minister that it is only being done because he cannot get the councils established by municipalities unless he does that. The municipalities are not keen on those councils, the Bantu are not keen on those councils. Why are the Bantu not keen on those councils? At the time we warned the hon. Minister that the Bantu would not accept these councils because of the fact that he was having selected members on the councils and that the chiefs were going to be represented on the councils as well. Not only do those councils deal with the running of the urban affairs, the township affairs, but they also establish courts. We warned the hon. Minister then that the Bantu themselves were going to oppose the establishment of these councils because of the other provisions. So now the Minister wants the municipalities to establish the councils. The municipalities are afraid to establish these councils because they do not know what the reactions of the councils are going to be under those circumstances. Therefore the Minister has now laid down that he will disestablish the council if that council does not behave itself.

I say this legislation is typical of the legislation which has been introduced by the Government over the years. At the end of the Session we have this Bill. We know that this is only a stop-gap Bill. I think it is the shortest Bill we have had dealing with Bantu in the 13 years this Government has been in power, but we know that we have got a much bigger Bill waiting for us next year, a Bill which was supposed to be introduced this year. That we will have to deal with next year. In the meantime this is just a stop-gap. We say that this is the wrong type of legislation, it is the wrong way of legislating, and what we should have is one Bill presented to us dealing with all the facets of Bantu life. It is impossible to-day for us to know exactly what the position of the Bantu is. I do not see how any Bantu can possibly know what laws control his movements or his place of residence. For him to try and fathom what his position is even under this Bill is an impossibility.

Could the hon. member elaborate on what he has just said, namely that we should have one Bill dealing with all the facets of Bantu Administration?

Order! I think neither the hon. member nor the hon. Deputy Minister should go too far into that.

Mr. Speaker, I will put it very shortly. What I mean is a consolidating Bill. I ask the hon. Deputy Minister to consider that before he introduces the other Bill next year. As I say it is impossible for the ordinary Bantu reading this Bill to know what his position is. I submit that every time he puts his foot out of his place of residence, he commits an offence. He does not know what the provisions are. The hon. Minister does not know. I defy his Department and his officials to tell me all the laws affecting the movements of the Bantu. Not only is he bound by this, but he is also bound by the Group Areas Act.

Order!

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am going too far. I cannot go on dealing with what the hon. Deputy Minister has asked, but I think I have said sufficient. I have also made him realize that the Group Areas Act is also to be considered when dealing with the laws affecting the Africans.

These further restrictions which are now imposed we consider quite unnecessary and we will oppose the third reading of the Bill.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) adopted quite a moderate tone this morning and I want to adopt a similar attitude. He adopted the attitude that we had to deal here once again with an irritating measure. I want to say here this morning that the main characteristic of the legislation before us is that it is one of the best pieces of legislation that we have ever had for the protection and the benefit of the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa, and I want to mention five points in this Bill which are really intended for the protection and the benefit of the Bantu people in the White areas of South Africa. This is one of the measures which unequivocally recognizes the human dignity of the Bantu people in the White areas.

I want to start with the first point which is contained in the clauses dealing with foreign Bantu in South Africa—the treatment that is now being meted out to the foreign Bantu in South Africa. In the first place and in the main this provision is designed, of course, for the benefit of our South African Bantu and no one else because as far as the White man in South Africa is concerned it will make no difference to him which Bantu does the work for him. Indeed, many Whites in South Africa want the labour of foreign Bantu, like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who made a moving plea in this regard. We realize that it may be to the advantage of the Whites to have foreign labour in South Africa but we also realize that it will not be in the interests of our South African Bantu. That is why this provision is being incorporated in this legislation. It is one of the provisions which make this measure so urgent because it will enable us to control the Bantu not only in our urban areas but throughout South Africa and gradually to substitute our own Bantu labour for the labour of the foreign Bantu. If this is not a measure for the benefit and the protection of the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa, then I do not know what will be to their advantage.

The previous speaker has objected to the fact that the foreign Bantu will now have to carry additional documents. I think that is entirely wide of the mark. He does not know what he is really talking about because the foreign Bantu is not going to be made to carry extra documents. He is going to receive a passport from his country of origin, just as every person has to have a passport in a foreign country. When a person goes to a foreign country he must have a passport from his country of origin. That will be the only document that the foreign Bantu will have to carry. The foreign Bantu is not going to receive another reference book from us because his means of identification will be the passport that he receives from his own country of origin.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the foreign Bantu will no longer be allowed to enter the country in an uncontrolled fashion. He will only be allowed to enter the country when he has been given permission to come and work here. In other words, we will then be sure that the foreign Bantu does not deprive our own Bantu of work and that he will not compete with our own Bantu for the work available here. That is the intention underlying all the clauses dealing with the foreign Bantu. I want to emphasize once again that these provisions are designed to protect our own Bantu in the White areas.

I come now to the second provision for the protection and the benefit of the Bantu in the White areas and that is the clause referring to domestic servants. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been emphasized far too little in this debate that this provision is designed for the protection and benefit of the Bantu in our White areas in that domestic servants will not be herded together as inferior beings in the backyards of White homes but will be able to live in their own residential areas where they will be able to participate in the social life of the members of their own community; they will be able to live a dignified life there instead of being herded together in backyards for the convenience of the children and grandchildren of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman); they will not simply exist for the convenience of White children and White comfort, but will also be able to live in their own Bantu residential areas together with their own people and be able to enjoy the communal life of the Bantu.

I come to the third provision which will benefit the Bantu and that is that we are now trying to obtain uniformity of action in regard to the Bantu in the White areas. If there is one thing which is confusing, which is upsetting, which completely confuses the Bantu in his behaviour in the White area, it is the fact that he is treated in a certain way in one urban area and that when he enters another urban area he is treated in a different way. He is treated differently in every urban area in which he finds himself. This sort of thing is terribly irritating and confusing and upsetting to him. We are now trying to obtain uniformity so that the steps that are taken in regard to the Bantu will be the same in each urban area, so that the Bantu will not be confused and will know how he is going to be treated. These uniform regulations which we seek to bring about, this uniform action in all the cities and towns, will be to the benefit of the Bantu and nobody else. I want to say this: This Bantu legislation is also to the advantage of the Whites in this regard. It is to the advantage of the Whites in that we need a national policy in regard to the Bantu in South Africa. We should not have the position where every urban authority has its own policy in regard to its treatment of the Bantu. But I want to emphasize that uniformity of action is to the advantage of the Bantu in the White area.

I want to deal with a fourth point to illustrate that this legislation is to the advantage of the Bantu in the White area and that is the break-through of Native law in this legislation. For the first time now recognition is being given to customary Bantu marriage unions in connection with the payment of compensation to the next-of-kin in the event of the Bantu’s death in an accident or in the event of his being injured. Mr. Speaker, this point too has not been emphasized very much during the debate on this Bill but I contend that it is one of the great advantages contained in this legislation and I am pleased that it is also regarded by the hon. the Minister as one of the urgent provisions that cannot wait for the later legislation which we know will be introduced next year.

I come now to the last advantage that I want to mention and that is the proclamation of released areas. The proclamation of released areas is also to the advantage of the Bantu. It is also of course to the advantage of the Whites but I am emphasizing its advantage to the Bantu because the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that we were dealing here with another irritating measure from the point of view of the Bantu. That is why I am pointing out that this is also to the advantage of the Bantu. I could elaborate a great deal on the advantages that it holds for the Whites, but I just want to emphasize that it is to the advantage of the Bantu. Why are these released areas being proclaimed? They are being proclaimed in the first place to eliminate the impossible conditions which the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) and his predecessors as Ministers of Native Affairs created in South Africa under the United Party Government.

Do you believe that?

It is the truth. Fortunately, we have all the files at our disposal. I have had the opportunity of seeing the signature of the hon. member for Green Point on many of those green sheets, I know therefore that that is the position. Those conditions were created under the regime of the hon. member for Green Point when he was Minister of Native Affairs. I mention the one example where he allowed land to be purchased and turned a small rural town into a White spot. He purchased land from Whites all around that town for the Bantu and by so doing isolated that little town and turned it into a White spot. We are now trying to assist those people. We are going to buy them out, and we are going to make that little town a released area. The South African Native Trust is going to buy out the Whites there. This is to the advantage of the Whites but I want to emphasize the fact that it is also to the advantage of the Bantu. In most of the released areas which are now being proclaimed it will be possible for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to establish certain towns close to the border industries of South Africa. In the course of the discussion on the Vote of Economic Affairs yesterday a great deal was said about border industries. We are now making it possible for towns to be established close to these border industries in South Africa. I want to mention Hammarsdale as an example; further examples are Clermont, the Rustenburg Farms and the land at Brits, all of which will be proclaimed released areas in terms of this legislation. Towns can then be established in these areas close to the border industries so that the Bantu will be able to live in their own areas and work in the White areas in those industries. They will therefore be able to lead a dignified life in their own areas; they will be able to buy their own piece of land and own their own plots, their own homes and enjoy full property rights in those areas. These are all benefits which will accrue to the Bantu under this legislation.

I have mentioned these five points. There are other minor benefits but I merely wanted to mention these five main points to indicate that this measure is to the advantage of the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa. But in spite of this the hon. member for Transkeian Territories made the stupid remark that this was an irritating measure and just another of the terrible measures passed by this Government. What was his purpose in saying this? Before resuming my seat I want to say that I associate myself with this remark of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to the effect that we should have one law governing the Bantu in the White areas as a whole. Let me tell him that that is our intention. He can look forward to it. He will receive a welcome “Christmas box” in this connection.

I would like to reply to some of the points made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He talked about this Bill largely being to the advantage of the Bantu and for their protection, and he mentioned various points. I am going to deal with some of them. The first one is this question of the foreign Bantu and regulations which are now going to redound to the benefit of the local Africans. Well, to some extent that might be true in that as far as the Government is concerned, restrictions which have always applied to foreign Bantu that come into the urban areas will now be extended to the rural areas. But I am quite sure that the actual labour position in this country is not going to change over-much. My experience in this country has been that where farmers kick up enough row about anything they want, they are likely to get what they want, and if there is a shortage of labour, I believe that rather than go looking around among the unemployed workers of South Africa, farmers will still be granted permits very lavishly for foreign Africans to come into the country. So I do not think in practice this is going to redound very much to the advantage of South African-born Africans. As far as the domestic servant clause is concerned, I have already said a great deal about this during the second-reading debate, and I do not want to repeat any of those points, but I must refute finally the statement made by the hon. member for Heilbron this morning that this is going to give the African domestic servant the right to his own community life. I would like to see that very much indeed if it could be organized in a normal way. But let us start in those occupations which do not in fact carry the extraordinary hours of domestic labour. Let us start with factory workers who after all are the majority of the workers in the large towns of South Africa. Let us start with the commercial workers who are the second largest group. Because these are the people …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Would you like to see Africans coming from Nyasaland or any other part of Africa competing with our Africans in Johannesburg and living there?

The hon. member makes the same mistake that other hon. members make in this House. I am not referring to foreign-born Africans. When I talk about family life for the Africans, I mean South African-born citizens. So I am not talking about Nyasaland Africans or Portuguese East Africans. I am talking about Africans born within the borders of the territory that all of us know as the Republic of South Africa, and for those people I certainly want normal domestic life and normal home life.

May I ask the hon. member a question? How is the hon. member going to reconcile family life with the backyards in the case of the Bantu?

Family life in the backyards cannot be reconciled per se with the family life of factory and commercial workers, but there would be no objection whatever as far as I am concerned to the employment of unmarried women, or widows, as domestic servants and their living on the premises of their employers. I want to ask the hon. member for Heilbron whether he would withdraw this legislation and introduce legislation instead to provide that only unmarried persons or widows would be allowed to reside on those properties as domestic servants, and in the case of married people that only one such resident domestic servant would be allowed? Would the hon. member be prepared to do that? It would meet my objective of having a normal family life for the Africans and also the hon. member’s objective of having a normal family life, with the difference that I would still allow domestic servants to live on the premises provided they are unmarried and not leaving their families behind either in the reserves or in the townships. But, as I say, domestic work, any way, is a different type of occupation, and people choose occupations knowing full well what the conditions are. For example, if one happens to be married to a doctor one knows he certainly does not lead a regular life where he has normal hours. He gets called out at all times of the day and night. Anyone who goes in for medicine knows that that is one of the conditions when taking up that occupation. There are people who have occupations which entail their working through the night, to do nightwork. Nurses have most irregular hours. There are people who have to get up very early in the morning because their type of work demands that. Domestic servants happen to have disjointed hours of labour, early mornings and again in the evenings, with hours off during the day. I say, Sir, it is absolutely, I cannot use the word “hypocritical”, but misleading for the Government to try and pretend that it is introducing this measure in order to increase the privileges of home life for domestic servants. That is not so at all, because hon. members any way are at present making all sorts of arrangements for the housing of thousands of domestic servants in single quarters, in barrack-like quarters in Alexandra Township, which is near the largest employing area of domestic servants in Johannesburg, the northern suburbs. And I must add this, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Musgrave, that there are no regulations to stop African domestic servants from living in locations or townships now if they want to, and therefore if this had been their desire, they would have done so. But they did not do so because of transport costs, loss of time and the fatigue involved in getting to and from their work every day and the additional rentals that would have to be paid and so on. That answers I think the second point raised by the hon. member for Heilbron.

Then he raised the point about the necessity of co-ordinated sets of regulations for the municipalities throughout the country. Now there might be something in this too, because it is quite true that the African is completely bemused by the completely contrary sets of regulations. Indeed, the whole of the urban areas legislation is a puzzle for a trained lawyer, let alone a simple African. To try and understand the regulations that pertain to Africans in South Africa is virtually an impossibility and I am glad to hear that at least a consolidating measure is to be introduced.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will not go any further at all on that. What I want to say in reply to the hon. member for Heilbron is that if the Government had contemplated adopting the regulations that are most liberally applied in the larger cities and making those the standard regulations throughout South Africa, there might be a point …

What do you mean by “liberal”?

The hon. Deputy Minister must not get upset. I do not mean that ugly, sinister word “liberale”. I mean “liberal” as used throughout the civilized world to mean a broad, widely conceived set of ideas. The point I am trying to make is that, as has been said by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, conditions vary from township to township, and if the Government had contemplated using regulations such as for instance were adopted by a large metropolitan centre like Johannesburg, which has got anything from 750,000 to 1,000,000 urban Africans to look after, the most sophisticated African people on the whole of the continent of Africa, that would be one thing. But not at all. The only example quoted to us of ideal municipalities running their affairs in the best possible way are municipalities like Heilbron and Potchefstroom, and I must say that it fills me with dismay to think that huge areas, sophisticated, advanced metropolitan areas, like Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, and so on, are now going to be confined to the most restrictive regulations conceived with the idea of Potchefstroom in mind. It is in any case not those large metropolitan centres.

Finally I want to say to the hon. member for Heilbron that this ideal of border industries sounds very fine. It sounds like the idea of decentralization with which nobody has any real objection. He talked about Hammanskraal and the setting up of homes for workers in the border industries in an area such as Hammanskraal. But this, I am afraid, is going to remain for ever just an ideal of the Nationalist Party because nothing is going to change the locational factors and the economic factors which, in fact, determine where entrepreneurs are going to establish their industrial enterprises. All the inducements in the world, such as low rates of interest on capital, depreciation allowances, etc., will not outweigh the natural advantages of areas where there is already an established market with consumer power attached to it, not like these reserves with their poverty-stricken inhabitants where there is no power, no transport …

That applies only to a few of the reserves and not to all.

Well, I should like to know which reserves are flourishing reserves able to support border industries. At any rate, I want to repeat that to my mind this question of border industries-is merely an unattainable ideal.

The Bill, as far as I am concerned, was bad at the beginning and it is bad still at the end. There are a few redeeming features which I mentioned earlier on but these, I am afraid, are greatly outweighed by the bad provisions of the Bill. In the main it follows that pattern of legislation which the Government has introduced since it came to power. This is a pattern with which we unfortunately are becoming only too familiar in South Africa: ever-increasing control from the top. This is, in other words, the very negation of democratic ideas, of the ideas of free enterprise and freedom of the individual. As far as I am concerned, therefore, the basic premise of this Bill is wrong and objectionable. The Government now enters the very homes of our citizens and disturbs relationships which have been going on untouched and quite satisfactorily for many generations. Local authorities now more or less become the puppets of the Central Government. This Bill is clearly aimed at those large municipalities which are not Nationalist Party orientated, municipalities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, etc.

In regard to the urban Bantu councils, these never meant much to me. I opposed the legislation in terms of which they were to be established because I realized that it was not a measure which was going to give real autonomy to the urban Africans. Now the Government is asking for power in this Bill to limit the powers of these urban councils. Neither does this make much difference to me because I did not have any faith in these councils from the word “Go”. I had no hope originally that these councils were going to mean anything to the urban Bantu. What we should be doing here this morning is to repeal laws, to repeal the restrictive laws of to-day. We should not be introducing further extensions …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

If I could just finish the sentence I shall sit down. We should not be introducing legislation which extends restrictive measures; rather we should repeal them.

I too, Sir, should like to reply to one or two of the points made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He said, first of all, that this Bill was one of the best pieces of legislation for the benefit of the urban Bantu. I cannot help but be reminded of what Humpty Dumpty said in “Alice in Wonderland”, i.e. that when he used words, they meant just what he wanted them to mean. We in this country have reached that stage where nobody seems to know what is or is not in his own interests. No group in the country seems to know what is in its interests—no race group, no municipality, in fact nobody if one has regard to this Bill. No housekeeper knows what is in her or his interest and no job seeker knows what is in his interest. It is only this Government who knows what is in their interests. The fact of the matter is that this Bill indicates more than any other Bill which relates to the urban Bantu, that this Government has no policy whatever for the urban Bantu—certainly not in so far as they are people living in the urban areas.

You are in wonderland.

I wish I were instead of living in the clouds of vapour given out by … [Interjections].

Order! The hon. member must come down from the clouds and deal with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to come down from the clouds when considering a Bill of this nature. However, Sir, I shall obey your ruling. The hon. member for Heilbron said that our attitude to this Bill was denying the “gemeenskaplike lewe” to the Bantu. When they leave in the mornings at 6 and arrive back at 9 in the evening, it is very difficult to understand just what the hon. member means by “gemeenskaplike lewe”.

Why only 9 o’clock in the evenings? Why do you not give them decent hours?

The hon. member now suggests that decent hours should be given. Now I realize that hon. members opposite are coming to the point where they want to tell us how long we should allow domestic servants to work. The hon. member must come down out of the clouds to the facts obtaining in South Africa. These facts are such, at any rate as far as Durban is concerned, that neither this Bill nor anything in relation to it will in the foreseeable future alter them. This is the basic problem and yet the hon. member for Heilbron is dreaming up all these phantasies just because he does not want to accept the facts as they are.

This clause relating to domestic servants is a deliberate attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister to change the whole pattern of living in South Africa in this respect. The hon. the Minister of Justice is endeavouring to change our drinking habits. Now this Deputy Minister is trying to change the pattern of living in other respects. This clause does not affect the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister of Finance with a home of seven rooms for seven servants but it affects the ordinary individual, the poorer man of South Africa. It does not affect the rich man and the man who can afford to employ White servants or Indian or Coloured servants. We know that the standard of the wages of the Bantu is much lower than the wages of those groups. And there are people who cannot afford one servant of any other race, let alone two or more.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has not yet indicated to us what criteria are going to be applied in regard to the granting of exemptions under this particular clause. What does the clause mean by saying that these exemptions may be granted? On what is he going to base the granting of such exemptions? Is it to be based on the particular station a person enjoys in life? Is it to be based on his influence or on the number of children he has, or on the fact that he is a Cabinet Minister? On what basis are these exemptions going to be allowed?

Even more remarkable are the reasons which were advanced in justification of this clause. The hon. member for Heilbron talked of community life. There is no concern on the part of the Government for the community life of people living in the urban areas. It was, therefore, not this reason which other hon. members on the other side, including the hon. the Deputy Minister, advanced for it. He encourages the views coming from hon. members behind him, views that this would stop the tsotsis and all other types of things. This is what was advanced by other hon. members opposite in justification for this clause and the hon. the Deputy Minister has not denied it. The fact is that this clause should be considered not only in relation to the contents of this Bill—which is all I am allowed to discuss at this stage—but also in relation to the original measure from which it was taken. It is only in that context that this Bill can be properly understood. Looked at in this way the contents of this Bill means that these people are not going to be regarded as permanent, although they are so in fact, nor as a community in the area but only as units of labour to be dealt with as you deal with any machine which is a unit of labour.

As far as local authorities are concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister thought he produced his trump card when he said at the end of his second-reading reply that local authorities themselves admitted that they were agents of the Central Government. For this he produced a document written by the United Municipal Executive I think it was …

No, it was the Johannesburg City Council who said so.

… and quoted from it the effect that local authorities were the agents of the Government.

That is a very dangerous word!

Yes. The hon. member for Houghton has reason to appreciate that. Now, I wonder what the word “agent” means in this context. Nobody has said that local authorities should be anything but being agents in so far as policy matters are concerned. Nobody has suggested that local authorities have the power to lay down policy. But since when are they the agents for the administration of this or any other law? Since when have local authorities been part of the administrative machinery of any Government Department? That has never been so. The reason why these municipalities have grown up differently is that in the different areas there are different problems with which only a local body can deal. And the only people who can administer this legislation, especially the Urban Areas Act, are the local authorities for the reason that they live with it; for the reason that all the problems attendant upon the administration of that Act are peculiar to a city. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that that is so. If he does not, he is going to learn this lesson if he is going to apply these standard regulations right throughout the country.

Unfortunately, however, it is not going to bounce back on the hon. the Deputy Minister or on this Government. It will bounce back on the local communities who are affected by this. Since time immemorial, at least since the White man has been in this country, these local authorities have administered the affairs of their local areas. The Government is based on the existence of those already well-developed institutions.

Your knowledge of this matter is very meagre.

Perhaps the hon. member for Karas will give the House the benefit of his knowledge of these matters. But what is going to happen under this clause? This clause provides for a model set of standard regulations. But now we are going to find the backroom boys of the hon. the Deputy Minister in Pretoria making regulations to deal with a situation, or with a combination of situations, with an interplay of factors, of which they know nothing. Those regulations are never going to see the light of day. What is the point in our discussing a Bill here? We do so in order to bring to the light of day all the difficulties that are inherent in a situation. We do so in order to show what effects such a measure is going to have and in order to make it possible for the Minister in charge to listen to suggestions. But that is not going to be the procedure as far as the drawing up of these regulations is concerned. On the contrary. They are going to be drawn up by the backroom boys in Pretoria and nobody will ever have a chance of considering them.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, I admit, makes provision in this legislation for consultation but if it is going to be a matter of Pretoria policy, then all this will fall by the board. What really worries me is not that this is something which might happen, but that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that it is in fact going to happen. He anticipates having to use these clauses relating to local authorities, and very soon for that matter. So when one looks at this clause, one must see it in the light of what the Deputy Minister said about it. He said this clause was urgently necessary. Is it urgently necessary to upset the whole pattern of local authorities and the pattern of the administration of the urban Bantu?

The hon. member for Heilbron said that it was a very good thing to have these standard regulations because those Bantu who move from town to town will then know what the position is. I suppose one could, if one wanted to try, suck all sorts of reasons out of one’s thumb. But does he also suggest that we should go so far as to standardize all by-laws of local authorities? That is an analogy. Does he suggest that? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister suggest it? Do they suggest that all by-laws should be standardized so that they can be applied to all races in the different cities throughout the country? If that is what they feel should be done, let them say so, so that we can know where we stand.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing a matter which falls outside of the scope of the contents of this Bill.

I want to obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I shall not take it any further. I want to say something about these urban Bantu councils. If they want to set up these bodies, they say they do so on the grounds that to do so would be extending democracy to the urban Bantu. On that they must accept a difference of opinion. If that is in fact their motivation, then there is no point whatsoever in passing legislation of this nature because if those councils do something which the Government does not like, they will be scrapped.

In conclusion I should like to say that this Bill is typical of the attitude of this Government to the urban Bantu. It is a half-baked measure, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories pointed out. It is a stop-gap measure and if the Government cannot do better than this in so far as the urban Bantu are concerned, then it bodes ill for South Africa, and it is true that the Government made way for a party which is capable of dealing with the facts as they are.

I want to deal with Clause 1 of this Bill. I do not propose to go further than that. I want to deal with it particularly in the light of the contention which has again been made by the hon. member for Heilbron in the speech he made a little while back. In this speech he repeated what he said also in his speech during the second-reading debate. This clause deals with those Bantu in the rural areas who will not be allowed after the passing of this legislation to remain in the Republic unless they get a permit issued by the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development or by a person to whom he has delegated such authority. Such a person can, as I understand it, be the Native commissioner of the area concerned. The hon. member for Heilbron has again said in regard to these Bantu that they are illegal immigrants. The other day he said that every one of them was; he made no exception whatsoever.

The point I want to make is that not only are they not illegal immigrants but that they are in fact South African citizens. That that is so, I have no doubt in my mind. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister by way of interjection at one stage why he wanted to deal with them in terms of this clause if they were illegal immigrants. The Deputy Minister did give a reply but that did not answer my question. What he said was that this was an administrative matter. I do not want to misquote him and therefore I should like him to indicate now whether I am correct or not.

I said that it was an administrative matter for the endorsements on existing documents to be carried forward to new documents.

Naturally, I accept the Deputy Minister’s explanation. But that does not answer my original question. I wanted to know why it was necessary to have the provisions of this clause if the hon. member for Heilbron is correct in his contention that these Bantu are prohibited immigrants, that they were here illegally. Now this clause provides that they may no longer be here after the passing of this legislation. Why are they not dealt with in terms of our immigration laws or in terms of our citizenship laws? Why bring in this clause to say that on the passing of this legislation these Bantu may no longer stay on in the Republic? If they are here illegally, as the hon. member for Heilbron contended, then surely they should be dealt with under our citizenship laws dealing with the legality or otherwise of their position here, or under our immigration laws whereunder they can be ejected.

Will you admit that any alien can only become a citizen of South Africa on naturalization?

Sir, now you can see what a fallacious attitude the hon. member for Heilbron is taking up. He is going to prove my case for me. In fact, his very question does that. He is going to demand of these Bantu that they should show their naturalization papers. But that is not in terms of the law before the passing of our Citizenship Act. The hon. member knows perfectly well that it was not.

Of course, that is the position.

Why does he not look at the law and find out? You see, Sir, up to the passing of our Citizenship Act in 1949, we were in this regard governed by a different law altogether. In those days we were called “Union nationals”. British subjects who had resided within the boundaries of South Africa for two years did not in terms of the then existing law acquire naturalization papers.

But these Bantu were not British subjects.

There we are, Mr. Speaker! Now these Bantu were not British subjects! This just goes to show how right we are in our contention that this Bill is intended to get rid of people who to-day are citizens of the Republic of South Africa. The people who came from Basutoland were British subjects, were they not? Those who came from Southern Rhodesia were British subjects, were they not? Does the hon. member not know that?

And those from Bechuanaland and Swaziland?

I am not talking about Bechuanaland and Swaziland but apparently the hon. member is now admitting that we are correct when we say that those coming from Basutoland and Southern Rhodesia were British subjects. He does not know his brief at all, and yet he is a lawyer and I a poor farmer from the back veld! Yet he has to come here and learn something about the law from me. Does the hon. member deny that the Natives in Basutoland and Southern Rhodesia are British subjects? No, he cannot. The position is beyond any doubt that they were British subjects and so in terms of the law applicable in South Africa prior to 1949 these Bantu acquired the status of Union nationals in the same way as any other person did who was of a different colour.

Read our report.

I am dealing with the law now and not with the report of the hon. member. The position then was that in so far as the law prior to 1949 was concerned, no discrimination was made against British subjects on the ground of colour. Consequently, the people who came here as Whites and as British subjects and acquired South African citizenship in terms of the then existing law, then became Union nationals. So did those who were not White. It has been argued in some quarters that a particular action was necessary so as to indicate the acceptance of South African nationality, because if they were Whites and were in the country for two years they could go on the Voters’ Roll. But that was not a formal acceptance of South African nationality. The man who acquired the status of a Union national without coming on the Voters’ Roll had the privilege of going on the Voters’ Roll as a result of the acquisition of his new status. The status did not follow upon his being placed on the Voters’ Roll. His privilege to go on the Voters’ Roll flowed from that fact that he had acquired a new status, i.e. that of a Union national. An African could not go on the Voters’ Roll. So what did the Government do? The Government gave them an identification pass which was exactly the same as the identification pass of our own Bantu and it made them pay taxes. In other words, the Government accepted them into the generality of the Bantu.

I say that I am convinced that in so far as the Bantu from Basutoland and from Southern Rhodesia are concerned who came here prior to the passing of the Citizenship Act in 1949 and who acquired Union nationality in terms of the then existing law, in so far as these Bantu are concerned we are now, in terms of this Bill, proposing steps to be able to say to them that they, who are citizens of South Africa, should no longer be in the Republic after this Bill has been signed by the State President. Otherwise they will act contrary to Clause 1 which lays down that they should be out of the country merely because they were born outside the country. Their acquisition of Union nationality and their compliance with the law applicable prior to the passing of the Citizenship Act in 1949 will therefore not protect them against such action. That is the reason for Clause 1. Otherwise, they could have been evicted under our immigration laws if they were here illegally. I think this is a shocking thing. The hon. the Deputy Minister should get up and tell us whether it is the intention under this clause to evict summarily those Natives who have acquired the status of citizens of the Republic of South Africa. If that is not the intention, I do not know what the reason is for the clause. That we can slip in a clause like this to deprive South African citizens—I do not know how many of them there are in this category—of their citizenship is a matter of such importance that if the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know the answer, he should withdraw the Bill and go into the matter very carefully before coming to this House and ask us to pass a measure of this kind. It is of too much importance to allow this measure, now that his attention has been drawn to its implications, to go forward without protection for our own citizens.

I am sorry that the hon. member who has just sat down objects to the third reading. If he had only read the memorandum covering the points that he has just made, he would not have lodged this objection because his objection rests on a completely wrong basis. He said time and time again that he objected to the effect of Clause 1. Clause 1 deals exclusively with the foreign Bantu who will in the future first have to obtain a certificate at the border posts before they will be allowed to enter the country.

Why are they foreign Bantu?

Because they were not born in the Republic of South Africa nor in South West Africa. They are therefore foreign Bantu and when they enter the country they will have to be given a certificate at the border posts.

You are wrong.

If the hon. member will read the memorandum he will see that I am not wrong. I am sure that he does not want to suggest that the memorandum puts the position wrongly. The objection raised by the hon. member is a completely untimely one. Not only is it untimely but the objection raised by the hon. member in regard to what he fears will be the effect of this clause rests on completely wrong grounds. I do think that this is the time to guard against wrong impressions being created as far as the effect of this measure as such is concerned. Take, for example, the question of the city councils which has again been raised here this morning. The role of agent which the city council plays to the Government is in conformity with formulated legislation which we want to standardize more or less throughout South Africa. It is obvious that if the decisions of city councils are to be accepted as the last word on the subject, they will of necessity come into conflict with the law of the land. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) as a lawyer knows that every city council has its own legal adviser which advises it to act in a certain way. In other words, every city council is advised by its own law adviser and if the opinion of the city council is to be the deciding factor, we are going to have chaos throughout South Africa. They will inevitably come into conflict then with the Central Government and that means that it will not be possible to implement the law as it is interpreted by the law advisers to the Central Government. I think that these are a few matters that we ought to rectify at this stage and that is what I have tried to do to the best of my humble ability. The argument raised by the Opposition that the city council should be able to adopt a course which is in conflict with the policy of the Central Government in regard to Bantu affairs is an argument that does not hold water. On the contrary, if we accede to their requests, we will have nothing but chaos throughout South Africa in regard to Bantu affairs.

I should like to deal with one point made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) with regard to what is stated in the memorandum in regard to Clause 1. The statement to which he referred relates not only to the whole Bill but I think he said more particularly to Clause 1. I am in some difficulty in finding the reason for that statement because on the one hand it does protect—to some extent—the Bantu of South Africa in regard to employment, but employment in itself is a means of living and there is no great moral achievement in being employed. It is usually a matter of necessity, so I do not know where human dignity comes into the argument that by protecting the South African Bantu, we are achieving the human dignity of the individual. Of course, when you look at the position that has arisen already in regard to the presence of the “foreign” Native, then one has serious doubt as to whether one can talk of dignity at all, because their point of view and their problems are apparently not to be considered at all! The position, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that there are 836,000 foreign Bantu in South Africa and many of them—one does not need to labour the point—have been here for many years. Their presence has been condoned, whether legally or otherwise—I say legally. I think the argument of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is irrefutable—the presence of a person in a country having been condoned, whether by an act of condonation in the case of the foreign Bantu here, or by the process of naturalization you cannot put him back in the position in which he was originally—and that is, an illegal immigrant. It cannot be done, not legally, not morally, and certainly if it is done no one can surely suggest that that is going to establish the dignity of that human being. Sir, quite fortuitously, within the last hour or two, I have received a letter which I intend to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister, a letter which illustrated this perfectly, the case of a Bantu, a Basuto, who has been living in Vereeniging for 17 years. He was a night watchman, and he happened to be going home after duty on the morning of the Sharpeville riots. He was unfortunately shot. He has been virtually paralysed since then, and after 17 years, with a wife and five children in Vereeniging, the local Bantu Administration said that he must get out, despite all the protests made there by people on both sides of the political fence, to the local administration. They say in effect that this man is not qualified under Section 12, and that is the law.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I do come back to this question of human dignity which this Bill establishes, and I assure you, Sir, that far from establishing anybody’s human dignity, it merely creates human difficulties.

I want to say this in regard to the advantage which the hon. member says the White people derive from the presence of foreign Bantu. I do not for a moment suggest that the White people of South Africa have deliberately wanted to exploit the foreign Bantu, but if they have employed them and it has been in the interest of the White community—their industries and their agriculture—there does not seem to be anything particularly wrong with that. I would say that in this legislation as in all other legislation, the White people should also be taken into account, and I do not believe that their point of view has been taken into account at all in regard to Clause 1, save and except that there will be exemptions. This Bill, which is making a law which applies to everybody and then leaving that escape hatch open, that there shall be exemptions, merely establishes or further establishes the position where everything is within the discretion of a Government Department; you may do nothing unless you get an exemption to do it. I think we have already reached the position …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am speaking of Clause 1, Sir. However, I will not pursue that point. I do want to deal with the argument which has been advanced in connection with Clause 6. As you know, the basis of the support of Clause 6 has been that it, again, confers many benefits on the Bantu. Surely if family life is important you would expect paragraph (e) to provide that not more than two Natives employed full-time as bona fide domestic servants shall reside on the premises, because there are cases where a husband and wife have been employed by the same employer for many years. This Bill will make it impossible even for that married, that family life, to be continued. Is that the Deputy Minister’s intention, despite his argument that he wants to ensure the family of the Bantu, quite apart from all the obvious difficulties of a person wanting to enjoy family life having to go back to a place to enjoy it, when that person, according to the experience in Johannesburg, will have had to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning to be at work at 8 o’clock, and will have to leave work at five, which is a reasonable hour, but will come home nearer nine than 8 o’clock? What sporting amenities or other amenities is that person going to enjoy, amenities which are provided for the residents of the area? I think it is a fallacious and an unreasonable argument to advance. Then there is the statement in the memorandum which deals with Clause 6—

Sir, the word “vicinity” does not appear in the Bill at all; it only appears in the memorandum. “Vicinity” is a word which anyone can define arbitrarily according to his own likes. What is “vicinity”? We have had the argument, for example, from the hon. member for Vereeniging that Lenasia is in the “vicinity” of Johannesburg. I have demonstrated that from the post office to the centre of Lenasia, by car, it is 19.2 miles. That is not in the “vicinity” for people who have no motor car, who have to use public transport, or who have to walk or use a bicycle.

You are totally irrelevant now.

Sir, if I am irrelevant, then obviously I cannot deal with either the memorandum or the Bill, but I am dealing with the memorandum which explains this clause in the Bill, and I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that the explanation is that the Bantu will only be removed apparently to a place in the “vicinity”, which may be, according to our experience in Johannesburg, up to 20 miles away. The further statement that when a Bantu residential area or a Bantu area is situated “inconveniently” near, does not carry the matter any further in explaining paragraph (e). Whose convenience is being considered here? The convenience of the employee? Certainly not, because if it was convenient for the employee to live and work in a certain place, you would leave him to live and work there. It is not the convenience of the White employer, because it has been explained that the White employer must do without the service of the employees in certain circumstances. Therefore, for whose convenience is it? Does the Government itself, in an impersonal way, derive any benefit from this convenience? Sir, like other clauses in the Bill, it cannot be justified merely by the use of words like “vicinity” and “convenience”. I want to leave that point there and deal briefly with Clause 9. The point has been made, and I do not intend to labour it, that the position of the local authority will become extremely difficult under this clause, and we can only repeat our urgent request to the Minister to think again about this particular clause. We can ask him to do no more than that because we have advanced every argument that the municipal government, which has grown up in South Africa through the years and in respect of which, in some aspects of local government, there is far greater know-how and experience than there is in the Department of State concerned, should be left to develop in the way it has done, whereby it has done a great deal of good and has created no difficulty for the State whatsoever.

I think the only other clause to which I would like to refer you is Clause 26, which deals with the urban Bantu Councils and the Minister’s power to disestablish them.

Order! I think that has been adequately dealt with.

I am not going to say what has already been said. I say that the point was made that the Minister would not seek to apply standard regulations in regard to the administration of the White part of the municipal area. I want to say that once the Minister has established the right of his Department to disestablish an urban Bantu Council, I am not quite so sure that inherently the Government has not taken the power to disestablish a municipal council as well, because it is not a very, very long step. As I pointed out in the second-reading debate, you cannot detach or divorce the administration of Bantu affairs from the administration of a large local authority area to-day. You cannot put them in separate compartments—although you attempt to do so—because we know that as regards population, as regards labour and as regards all the factors which make a community, you cannot turn a blind eye to the affairs of the Bantu and say “now we will deal only with the White aspect”. As far as I am concerned, therefore, this opens the door to Government interference with the ordinary rights of a local authority by eventually disestablishing the municipality itself of a particular town when that municipality, according to the Government, does not conform with its policy. Therefore, all in all, despite the praise this Bill has received—and I am surprised that this morning only one hon. member on the Government side, in fact, sang its praises—despite all the praise which has been lavished on it, there is very little positive good in the Bill, and there is a great deal of positive harm that will result from it.

Strictly speaking I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything now because hon. members opposite have not raised any points at all in this third-reading debate which we have not disposed of during the previous stages of this Bill. But I suppose I will be expected to say a few words. I just want to confirm what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said just now. I can supplement the examples that he mentioned with a further few examples. I want to reiterate that this Bill is in fact characterized by positive measures in the interests and in favour of the Bantu. The hon. member mentioned five of them but there are more. You will remember that in my second-reading speech I strongly emphasized—and I want to repeat it here—that all 12 of the main provisions of this Bill which I dealt with will redound to the benefit of the Bantu, including the provision with regard to domestic servants, which may very well be the most important provision of all.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said that under this Bill we were treating the foreign Bantu harshly. I deny that. What we are doing here is to take proper control measures in connection with the foreign Bantu. I have an assurance in this connection during the second-reading debate. I do not want to repeat those assurances now except to say that I stand by what I said.

In connection with the regulations, the hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that we would lose the co-operation of the local authorities, that we wanted to eliminate them and so forth. On the contrary, I want to tell hon. members opposite and I want to predict that as far as the local authorities are concerned, we will receive even more co-operation from them as regards the standardization of regulations than we have had up to the present. As hon. members know, there are a large number of local authorities throughout the country. We have known them over the years; we have had dealings with all of them and they also learn from one another. We are, as it were, the central bureau where, by standardizing regulations, all that experience of all the local authorities can be properly co-ordinated in the interests of everyone. I think that the Opposition are doing the local authorities more harm than good by what they have had to say here.

Hon. members of the Opposition have suggested that we are interfering with the autonomy of the local authorities. But hon. members know that the decisions of local authorities cannot clash with the law, and if they do clash because of ignorance on the part of a particular local authority or because of a lack of experience or whatever the reason may be, even if, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories wants to suggest, they are motivated by malice—and I do not accept that local authorities are deliberately malicious—I say that if their decisions are in conflict with the law, this sort of provision which we are introducing in this Bill to assist them to take the right decision can only be to the good of Bantu administration and of the Bantu and not to their detriment. In these provisions we are dealing with measures in the interests of Bantu administration. We are not dealing here with measures for the aggrandizement of local authorities.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is not here now and I need not therefore say anything about her speech. I just want to say that I am very sorry that although she saw much good in this Bill and at one stage was prepared to be of assistance with a view to more being done, she eventually withheld her support for reasons of her own.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mithcell) has asked me how the city councils deal with exemptions for a second or third domestic servant to be housed on the premises. In the Bill itself certain indications are given. There is the question of the distance from the residential areas where the Bantu have to live. I also dealt with this in my second-reading speech. I said that local authorities would also have to take other things into consideration such as, for example, the merits of certain employers, their domestic circumstances, the question of sick people in need of care and so forth. All these things will have to be considered. But what does appear strange to me in this connection is that although it is very clearly stated in the Bill that it is the local authorities which will have to issue the licence for a second or third Bantu worker, the hon. member does not trust the local authority in this respect. He accuses us of introducing other provisions here, and, as he says, of refusing to trust the local authorities; he suggests that we want to interfere with their local autonomy; that we want to deal with them just as we please, when we say in this provision that it will be left to the local authority to decide whether the employer may accommodate a second domestic on his premises or not, the hon. member then tells us that the local authorities are not to be trusted to carry out this function! Which one of these two contradictory attitudes of the hon. member am I to accept? Sir, I leave it at that; I just wanted to prove to hon. members opposite how inconsistent they are.

I am afraid the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has a “bee in his bonnet”; he has a quarrel with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I think that they will have to settle it in some other way. I just want to remind the hon. member for South Coast once again of what I said during the second-reading debate and that is that this provision deals with labour control over foreign Bantu entering the country. We are not dealing here with immigration matters. It is very clearly stated that the foreign Bantu who are already here will have to ensure that their documents are endorsed administratively. Foreign Bantu coming into the country will have their documents endorsed to the effect that they are coming here to work, and they will be controlled in the same way in the rural areas in the future as they have been controlled in the urban areas in the past. In the past, that is to say, up to to-day, these Bantu could enter the country in order to work in the rural areas if they said that they wanted to work there. We are now providing that the same control which is exercised in the urban areas will have to be exercised in the rural areas. The mere fact that a foreign Bantu goes to work in the rural areas does not make him a South African subject. I have already stated during the second-reading debate and I want to repeat for the information of the hon. member that in terms of the Immigration Act provision is made for a distinction to be drawn between various classes of British subjects.

Where?

I shall give the hon. member that information privately.

Order! The hon. Deputy Minister must not allow himself to be tempted by questions which are not relevant. He must observe the rules governing a third-reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, Clause 1 of this Bill which deals with foreign Bantu is very necessary because it is going to control this labour that I have mentioned. If this clause is not included in the Bill, it will mean that there will be no control over foreign Bantu in the rural areas; they will then be able to enter the country and simply say that they want to work on the platteland and we shall be able to do nothing about it. If that sort of thing is to happen we may just as well forget about the border control that we are now instituting by means of these border posts. I cannot understand the hon. member.

Is the position then that Bantu who entered the country before the passing of the 1949 Act and who became South African citizens, will not be prevented under Clause 1 from remaining in the Republic?

Bantu who have had to become South African subjects in the past have had to do so under other laws. They have not done so on a large scale, but that is not relevant here. We are dealing here with the presence of foreign Bantu in South Africa and the question of control over those foreign Bantu. That is perfectly clear. Just before I resume my seat I want to remind hon. members that the permits which foreign Bantu obtained in the past were all valid for six months only. They were all temporary permits. As soon as those permits lapsed, everything else in connection with that Bantu also lapsed.

I want to conclude by saying just two things: Hon. members of the Opposition always ask for references to things and when one gives them references, such as the names of places and the names of Bantu who agree with one, they poke fun at those places and those names. I deprecate that. Another thing that I want to say is that it has become perfectly clear—during this third-reading debate as well—that the United Party is retreating completely from its alleged policy of residential apartheid for the Bantu in the White areas.

I am sorry I was not here when the hon. the Deputy Minister replied. I asked to be informed when he started speaking. I was busy with an interview in my office. If the hon. Deputy Minister has anything to say in reply to my speech, will he please do so now? I returned to the Chamber the moment I was told that he had started replying.

I think that the hon. Deputy Minister should reply to the hon. member privately.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—78: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. J.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: J. J. Fouche, and D. J. Potgieter.

Noes—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a third time.

I move—

Hon. members are probably aware that the Expropriation (Establishment of Undertakings) Act, 1951, provides in Section 2 that the Minister of Economic Affairs, at the written request of a person who has established an undertaking or intends establishing an undertaking which by resolution of both Houses of Parliament is declared to be an undertaking to which that Act is applicable, may allow such person to expropriate land for certain purposes—amongst others, for the laying of a pipeline or anything else connected with it. Hon members will also remember that a year or two ago we had a similar motion here in connection with an oil company in Durban which wanted to build a refinery and which also asked to be declared an undertaking to which this Act applied so that it (the company) could have the right to expropriate land to build a pipeline from the harbour to the refinery and a rail connection from the refinery to the railway line. This House agreed to give the oil company that right.

The motion now before the House is that Sasol be declared to be an undertaking to which the relevant Act shall apply so that Sasol will have the right, with the consent of the Minister, to expropriate land for the building of a pipeline under certain conditions. The reason for this request is that Sasol is working out a plan for the manufacture of industrial gas on a large scale. When Sasol starts manufacturing that industrial gas it will be desirable for that gas to be conveyed by means of a pipeline to the South Rand areas—that is, the Vaal triangle, Meyerton, Alberton, Germiston, further east up to Springs and north up to Kempton Park. In order to be able to do this work and to be able to lay this pipeline, Sasol will need these expropriation powers. I am not asking now for approval for the large-scale manufacture of gas by Sasol. That is not under discussion here. This scheme has been submitted to the Government. The Government is considering it from all angles and will arrive at a decision shortly. All we want is this: If Sasol proceeds to manufacture gas, we want it to have the right of expropriation for the laying of this pipeline to the South Rand, to the East Rand and also to the North Rand. This pipeline will extend over about 90 miles. Some of the land involved will be farmland, other land will be municipal land and certain other land belongs to mining companies and companies such as Sasol and Foscor themselves.

If Sasol does start manufacturing gas on a large scale, the merits of which we are not discussing at this stage, the idea is too that the distribution of that gas will later on be undertaken by a utility company to be established on more or less the same basis as that on which Escom is established at the moment. Sasol will only do the preparatory work. As soon as this preparatory work has been completed, these rights which are now being given to Sasol will be transferred to the company which is to be established, and legislation in this regard will be submitted to this House next year.

I think that is the only information that I can give hon. members at the moment. I just want to repeat that this is what Sasol plans to do; that this plan has been considered by the Government which has to issue the licence; that this motion has nothing to do with the plan as such, but merely deals with the laying of the pipeline and the right that will be given to Sasol to expropriate land if it becomes necessary to do so for the laying of this pipeline on the Rand.

I second.

We on this side of the House will support this motion. I would ask the hon. the Minister a question. He mentioned that an authority would be formed to deal with the sale of the gas throughout the whole Reef area or wherever else it can reach if and when the venture proves successful. Has the Minister anything in mind in regard to Johannesburg? Johannesburg is producing its own gas at the moment but if Sasol gas can finally be produced more cheaply obviously some negotiations will have to take place. Would it be the intention then to put Johannesburg under the control of this new utility company?

Mr. Speaker, we are not discussing the merits of the matter, as the hon. the Minister has explained. But here we are being asked to give this company which is really a subsidiary of the I.D.C., special privileges. I am not going to discuss the question whether the new company to be established in Johannesburg is one of which we approve or not; we are not concerned about that. I want to emphasize again as I emphasized yesterday that the time has arrived when we in this House should have accountability to this House by any public enterprise of this kind. Yesterday we voted R21,000,000. We are told: Vote the money and after that you will have no say over it; you will have no say as to how it is to be spent.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a simple question: Is there any objection to it? The Standing Rules and Orders Committee, as I explained yesterday, are going to say that our Select Committees should be restricted to 15 members. We have one for Public Accounts and one for Railways. Is there any reason why we should not have a Select Committee to report to this House on the expenditure of money by, and the policy of, public utility corporations? I am not saying this in a critical spirit, Sir, but this House should be informed on what is happening; it should have something more than the annual reports. I ask the hon. the Minister, while this new scheme is going through, to give this his very, very serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the point raised by the hon. member for Benoni, there is no decision yet. The original idea is to serve the southern Transvaal, the eastern Transvaal and the Witwatersrand. I think there have been negotiations between Johannesburg and Sasol on this matter. I think Sasol is completely open to any request on the part of Johannesburg to provide gas to Johannesburg. But this is not for us to decide, it is for this authority that is to be established eventually to decide after negotiations with Johannesburg. It is possible.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

In terms of the trade agreement of 16 May 1960 between the Republic and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland cigarettes manufactured in the Federation are subject, when imported into the Republic, to most-favoured-nation treatment as far as the import duty is concerned applicable to cigarettes from time to time minus a rebate on such import duty of 105c per 1,000 cigarettes. In paragraph 7 of the agreement goods manufactured in the Federation are defined as goods in respect of which at least 25 per cent of the factory and workshop costs have been paid out in the form of wages or for material produced in the Federation. This definition, namely, that 25 per cent qualifies a product to be taken as a product manufactured in the Federation, means that cigarettes manufactured in the Federation and which contain a considerable percentage of imported tobacco, qualify for favoured tariff treatment in the Republic. As against that it was never the intention of the two Governments that the South African tariff concession on cigarettes manufactured in the Federation should also apply to cigarettes containing a high percentage of imported tobacco. The Federal Government therefore, requested the South African Government last year to agree to it that the agreement be changed so as to provide that the percentage of Federal leaf tobacco which cigarettes manufactured in the Federation must contain in order to qualify for the tariff concessions in the Republic must be that percentage decided upon by the two Governments from time to time. The Government acceded to the request and the two Governments exchanged notes in order to confirm the agreement which they had come to in this connection, and the House is now being asked to approve this exchange of notes.

For the information of hon. members I may just add that flowing from this exchange of notes the two Governments have come to an agreement that until such time as they decide otherwise, only cigarettes containing 100 per cent Federal leaf tobacco and manufactured in the Federation would qualify for the tariff concession.

I second.

The hon. the Minister has given us a full explanation and we have no objection to the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The Ottawa trade agreement of 20 August 1932 between South Africa and the United Kingdom provides that South Africa will enjoy a preferential margin of 10 per cent ad valorem on boxwood and also that it can export this product to the United Kingdom free of customs duty. That agreement is, therefore, a guarantee to South Africa that boxwood imported by Britain from South Africa will be allowed to enter that country free of customs duty whereas similar imports from other non-Commonwealth countries are subject to an import duty of 10 per cent ad valorem. This preferential margin of 10 per cent has already been partly abolished at two stages. That was done in 1960 and 1961 by way of two separate sets of an exchange of notes between the South African and the British Governments in terms of which the South African Government agreed to it that the British Government could gradually decrease its 10 per cent ad valorem customs duty on imports of boxwood from other member countries of the European Free Trade Association and Finland respectively in order to give effect to Britain’s obligations as a member state of the European Free Trade Association. These two sets of exchange of notes were approved of by Parliament in the years 1961 and 1962 respectively. In the meantime the British Government has requested the South African Government to see to it that this preferential treatment of boxwood blocks of certain dimensions were whittled down so as to enable the British pulp and paper manufacturers to import all types of wood processed in their factories in block form, of which boxwood formed an insignificant percentage, free of customs duty from all other countries. I may just mention that South Africa has never exported any appreciable quantity of boxwood to Britain. As a matter of fact during the past three years for which official export figures are available, we never exported more than R5,000 worth per annum. According to the Department of Afforestation our boxwood supplies are very limited and there is no possibility of expanding our export trade to any appreciable extent. It is clear, therefore, that the loss of this preferential treatment for all practical purposes will have no adverse effect on South Africa’s export trade. The Government felt, therefore, that the local interests would not suffer any appreciable loss if this preferential tariff treatment of wood in block form, as far as Britain was concerned, was abolished and it thus decided to accede to the request of the British Government. The exchange of notes which we are to-day submitting to the House for approval confirms the Government’s acquiescence to this request.

I second.

The hon. Minister has given us a full explanation and we support the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

So far South African exporters have not done a great deal to exploit the possibilities of the Spanish market for their exports. In spite of that there are fair possibilities for the development of our export trade with that country, particularly in view of the fact that Spain has been experiencing a considerable economic upsurge lately. The Government has for a considerable time been investigating the possibilities of the Spanish market for South African exports and of bringing those possibilities to the notice of the South African exporters. Thus, for example, the South African trade mission which visited certain European countries in 1961 also visited Spain and the trade representative of the Republic in Paris has also been accredited in Madrid with the deliberate object of promoting the sale of South African goods in Spain. The Spanish Government on their part have continually during the past year contended that a trade agreement between Spain and the Republic would be favourable to Spanish exports to South Africa which in turn would enable Spain to export more to South Africa. The Spanish Government pointed out that in view of the fact that Spanish goods were not entitled to mostfavoured-nation tariff treatment in the Republic those goods were subject to the maximum duty under our tariffs which made it impossible for the Spanish exporters to compete successfully with the exporters from other countries who enjoyed most-favoured-nation treatment in the Republic. Although Spain does not levy discriminatory customs duty on South African goods its import control system and other measures relating to imports are of such a nature that it can discriminate against individual countries from which it imports. In order to increase South Africa’s exports to Spain it is essential, therefore, for the Government to get an undertaking from the Spanish Government that the latter will not apply these measures in such a way that they will discriminate against South African goods. In view of these considerations, and also the traditional friendship which exists between the two countries in various spheres the Government has acceded to the request of the Spanish Government that a most-favoured-nation trade agreement be concluded between the two countries. The agreement entered between them which is now submitted to this House for its approval, embodies reciprocal assurances in respect of both the tariff treatment the two countries will extend to each other and the treatment they will extend to each other’s goods in terms of their non-tariff measures.

In the past South Africa’s exports to Spain have not increased at the desired rate. From 1957 to 1959 our exports to that country have annually been less than R2,000,000. In 1960, however, the total value was R3,800,000 and R5,400,000 in 1961 but in 1962 it again dropped to R3,900,000. In terms of the trade agreement between the two countries the exporters from the Republic now have the assurance that their goods will enjoy most-favoured-nation treatment in Spain in respect of both import duty and non-tariff measures. In view of this I hope they will make renewed efforts to penetrate the Spanish market. My Department is prepared to assist them in their efforts as far as possible.

I second.

The hon. Minister has given us a full explanation, perhaps not as full as we would like. While we support this motion, we would like to know from the hon. Minister whether he can give us any indication as to the nature of the goods which he expects will be exported to Spain in future as a result of this agreement and what the nature of the imports are into this country. The hon. Minister has indicated the figures and has spoken in general terms, but he has not given us any indication as to the nature of the products that will be handled from Spain into South Africa and from South Africa into Spain. I think it would help commerce and industry in general if further information could be given. That may help those who are anxious to extend their trade with Spain, and I hope that the hon. Minister in the course of his reply will give us an indication in general terms as to the products which may have a chance in the Spanish market, and also those products which will be encouraged to come to this country.

I can give the hon. member a survey of the items, the commodities of trade between South Africa and Spain. As regards our exports to Spain, the main item consists of metals and ores. For the year 1961 in which our exports to Spain amounted to R5,400,000 approximately, we exported to Spain metals and ores for about R3,500,000. The next item was hides and skins, just over R1,000,000, wool and mohair approximately R700,000. These are the main items of our exports to Spain. I think in respect of all these items and many others we could increase our exports to Spain. From Spain we imported mainly textile goods. I think perhaps Spain could deliver more textile goods to us under this most favoured nation treatment. Then also foodstuffs …

May I ask the hon. Minister how that will affect our own textile industry?

Our whole textile industry is still protected. We have our tariff protection against imports from all countries. Spain will get no more favourable treatment than any other country. So I do not think it will affect us in any case. We will only get a greater diversity and we will import from more countries, or rather will import more from Spain perhaps than we did in the past and perhaps we will import less from other countries, but it could not really affect our industry because it is protected. The importation of textile goods from Spain amounted to approximately R600,000, and then foodstuffs, tartaric acid and cork—these are the main items we imported from Spain.

Motion put and agreed to.

The longer I remain in this House, the less I understand the mentality and the actions of the Opposition. Last evening we had the experience here that they launched an attack in the first place upon the report of the commission of inquiry into safety in the mines. Unless I misunderstand them, in the second place the hon. member for Germiston (District) attacked the Pneumoconiosis Act of last year. I will be excused for saying that I cannot be blamed if I regard them as politically dense, because we regard this report of the commission of inquiry into safety in the mines as a valuable report. We want to pay tribute to the Minister for already having to a large extent given effect to the recommendations of this report. Those which have not as yet been given effect to are about to be given effect to, or they will be given effect to in the spirit of the recommendations. I think the Opposition really had this object in view, namely to step into the breach for the person who really was responsible for the position which had developed and which led to the inquiry that took place. I now wish to put the matter in very elementary language for the benefit of members. We must view this report in this light, and judge it in this way. Mining is dangerous work. We agree on that. Precautions must constantly be taken to prevent accidents and to safeguard the workers against undue exposure to mineral dust. In the third place the safety measures are the burden and the duty of the mine owners. In the fourth place there must be supervision to ensure that the safety measures are carried out and applied. In this respect we have three groups of interests in this country. They are the mine owners, the employees and the State. They are represented by the Chamber of Mines, by the Trade Unions and by the division of the Government mining engineer. It is very essential that there should be the closest co-operation and mutual confidence between these three bodies. In this regard the Government mining engineer occupies the key position. It is an important post carrying great responsibilities. I should like to summarize the duties of the Government mining engineer as follows: The Government mining engineer is the guardian of the health and safety of all workers in mines and works. It is his responsibility and his duty. But viewed from the angle of the mineworker, the best guarantee against mine accidents and the contracting of an occupational disease is an effective system of supervision and control. The Government mining engineer occupies the exceptional position of being able to call the one to account, and to gain and to retain the confidence of the other. He must call the mine owner to account and can thereby gain the confidence of the mineworker and retain it. All this places upon the shoulders of the Government Mining Engineer a great and responsible task. We agree with that. Inferences drawn from this report show that. Apart from the fact that I have not really found any fault with the technical skill of the division of the Government mining engineer, I am entitled to draw these inferences: namely that the Government mining engineer failed to instil confidence and to command respect. The Government mining engineer failed to be the ideal link between the three interested bodies concerned in the matter. As a result, a sense of suspicion and mistrust arose among the mineworkers. According to my inference, it was quite justified too. We appreciate that at the present time attempts are being made to put right the mistakes of the past seven years. We appreciate the fact that those mistakes have been traced and that they have been disclosed to the country and to the House. For that reason we appreciate the fact that the recommendations made have largely been given effect to. We cannot get away from the fact that we can attribute all our troubles and all our problems of the past seven years and more, as far as mining is concerned, to the sense of mistrust and lack of confidence created by the division of the Government mining engineer. I really expected that a little appreciation would have been shown last night for what has already been done by the acting Government mining engineer. We expected the hon. member for Germiston (District) to mention that the present efficiency of the division in ensuring safety can be attributed to the zeal of the staff, particularly the acting incumbent of the post of the Government mining engineer. We owe him a great debt of thanks and appreciation for what has already been achieved in this respect under his guidance and under his efficient management. But I should like to emphasize this again and say: If this report is analysed, we must attribute all our troubles to the fact that the division of the Government mining engineer failed to instil confidence and to command respect. Proof of this can be found in paragraphs 23 and 24 of this report. In paragraph 23 it is stated very clearly—

Paragraph 24 goes further and says this—

The division of the Government mining engineer is responsible for this—

We appreciate, that, Mr. Chairman, and we wish to congratulate the Minister for having already proceeded to give effect to the recommendations contained in this report. If the recommendations are applied, it will obviate all the unpleasantness we have experienced in recent years. It ought to create a spirit of mutual trust and co-operation which will promote the welfare of the worker and the interests of the employer. It will enable the division of the Government mining engineer to raise its office to the position of trust it ought to hold in this country.

The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) has adopted a completely wrong approach as regards our attitude towards the report. We welcome it. We have never welcomed a report more than we welcome this document because this report officially discloses what we have contended for a long time, namely that there is something radically wrong in “the State of Denmark” as far as the Department of Mines is concerned. We have maintained from time to time that the responsibility for that state of affairs lies with the previous Ministers of Mines who were strongly influenced by two individuals—the then Secretary to the Mineworkers’ Union and this inspector who, for purposes of respect, we shall refer to as Mr. X. These two men were dominating the whole Department of Mines, and the Government mining engineer was not master in his own house. Sir, we welcome the new incumbent of this office, Mr. Gibbs. We wish him all good luck and success. He has started with the favourable position that he has not got these two men pointing a finger at him the whole time and threatening him. Ellis is no longer in the position to do any threatening. He is no longer Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union. Inspector X is under suspension. If the Government carries out the recommendations of the second interim report in which they recommend that this man should be dismissed from the service, they will be doing the mining industry a good turn. From that point of view, sir, the Government mining engineer starts off with a very favourable position. We wish him luck. It is absolutely essential in the interests of the mineworkers of this country that there should be peace, stability and confidence in the industry. I should like to make a further plea on behalf of the new incumbent of this office, and ask the hon. the Minister if he is prepared to carry out the recommendations contained in paragraphs 84, 85 and 86 of this report. We find a very interesting position here. The Legislature never ever envisaged that any Minister of Mines should be able to influence any policy decisions of the Government mining engineer. The Legislature always wanted to regard the Government mining engineer in exactly the same position as our Controller and Auditor-General is—free from any influence from any Minister. That is why the Legislature provided that the Government mining engineer shall be appointed by the State president. He can only be dismissed by the State President. We submit, sir, that the two previous Ministers of Mines had no right whatsoever in interfering in any of the decisions or policies of the Government mining engineer.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was dealing with the position, as revealed in this report of the Commission of Inquiry, in connection with the relationship between the Government mining engineer and the Minister of Mines. I maintain that it is absolutely clear from the findings of this Commission that in terms of the Gold Law, the Minister of Mines has no right whatsoever to bring the Government mining engineer under his dictation. This is what the report says—

Then it goes on to say—

I was very concerned to note that one of the recommendations which one imagined the Deputy Minister of Mines should have read out yesterday as having been immediately accepted by his Department, was not accepted; and that is this very important recommendation that there cannot, and must not, be any interference by the Minister of Mines in his dealings with the Government mining engineer. I think this was a first-class conception on the part of our Legislature. It was meant to put the Government mining engineer in exactly the same position as the Auditor-General so that no influence whatsoever can be brought to bear on him and so that he can be master of his own home. Sir, talking about being the master in his own home, I mentioned instances yesterday to show the undue and the unnecessary interference by the then Ministers of Mines in the working of the Government mining engineers department. I want to refer to two others; I refer to the fact that the then Minister of Mines was bulldozed—and I use the word advisedly—by Ellis into appointing an ad hoc committee immediately after the Coalbrook disaster. The Minister was informed that that committee was ultra vires his powers, that it was unconstitutional, but he went ahead and appointed it. On that ad hoc committee he appointed this self-same inspector who had been causing all this trouble in the Government mining engineer’s department. It was only when the mining industry, as such, warned the Minister that this committee was ultra vires, that it was disbanded. Sir, what else did the Minister do? Over the head of the Government mining engineer a “flying squad” of one man was appointed to undertake investigations, and this one man, needless to say, was this self-same inspector. What did this man do? Without justification—and I say this advisedly—he closed up numerous coal mines, or sections of coal mines and brought chaos and crises in the industry; he caused power stoppages throughout the country. He caused a loss of £250,000 per day in gold production, and when these decisions were taken on appeal to a court of law they were practically all thrown out. I would like the Minister to tell me in how many cases handled by this Inspector X and which were taken on appeal, the court ruled in favour of this inspector. In how many cases was his action vindicated? If the Minister can give me two such cases it will be a lot. I would question the Minister why he has not carried out what use to be a matter of routine procedure in previous years. Neither he nor his predecessor, Mr. de Klerk, nor Dr. van Rhyn, saw fit to make regular routine tours with the Government mining engineer to the various mining inspectorates. When last, if ever, did the present Minister make such a tour with his Government mining engineer? When did the Minister’s predecessor do it, and when, if ever, did Dr. van Rhyn do it. How many times in the last six years has the Government mining engineer been allowed to visit his Minister of Mines? I will tell you, Sir. In six years, he saw him three times! The rest of his activities had to be done by correspondence. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs in the interests of the safety of 652,000 mineworkers? That is the number of times that the Government mining engineer saw his Minister, and his Minister came to see him six times in seven years. Is that the way to run a Department? What has been the upshot of all this? The upshot has been that the miners have now got to know what has taken place. And what have they done? Sir, I want to ask the Minister whether quite recently he has not had a resolution sent to him by the Mineworkers’ Union expressing no confidence in him? Did Minister de Klerk at the same time have a motion of no-confidence in him sent to him by the Mineworkers’ Union Executive? Were copies of those letters not sent to the Prime Minister? I would like the Minister to tell me whether that is correct or not. I want to know from the Minister why he is not prepared to disclose the second Interim Report. The flimsy excuse which he has given—that it refers to three individuals—is not good enough. Alternatively, I ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition see that report? Will he be prepared to let the Leader of the Opposition see the evidence that was given in camera by the Government mining engineer, in spite of the protests from the Government engineer. He asked that this evidence be given in public but they refused to let him do it. I want to ask the Minister of Mines whether in either of those two reports any reference is made to the unstable condition of the ground at the West Driefontein Mine, where that terrible disaster took place in December 1962? Were representations made to the Department of Mines that legislation should be introduced in order to prevent the underground water from the West Driefontein Mine and other mines in that area accumulating on the surface of the farmers’ land? What was done in that regard? I want to refer to a statement which appears in the Annual Report of the Government mining engineer for the year ended 31 December 1961—

Have representations not been made to the hon. the Minister, either by the mining industry or the previous Government mining engineer, to introduce legislation in order to enable the mines to canalize that water away so as not to have it spread all over the surface and subsequently percolate through and wash away the soft soil below. Was it not on the representations of farmers in that area, that the Minister was not prepared to take action?[Time limit.]

I do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Chairman, it was my doubtful privilege, if I may call it that, to sit with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) in the Transvaal Provincial Council. I can only say “doubtful prilege” after hearing him here this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I immediately return to the Vote. The hon. member has spoken to the Mines Vote. The hon. member had the audacity to mention the names of people who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves here. This afternoon the hon. member acted in a manner which may be parliamentary, and for that reason you permitted him to do so, but there are other moral standards that count, and the hon. member has not had regard to those. I should like to know where the hon. member got his information from in regard to what he knows about the second interim report. I shall also be glad if he will have the courage to tell us where he got his information from that the Minister refused to act, and the number of occasions upon which the Minister of Mines saw certain people and went on a tour with them. However, he does not have the manliness or the courtesy to tell us where he got his information from, he merely makes disguised accusations. I regard that as most deplorable. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Springs has had his opportunity; he must now give the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) an opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, if time permits us to do so, I am prepared to have a showdown with the hon. member on this matter. I regard his conduct in this debate as extremely petty and deplorable.

You said you were going to discuss the Vote.

Yes, it will suit the hon. member better if I were to discuss the Vote. Yesterday he put both feet into it and now he is doing so again. In debates of this nature, Mr. Chairman, the safety of the mineworker is, as far as I am concerned, the first consideration. I shall not hesitate for one moment to criticize either the hon. Minister or the Government mining engineer if it is necessary to do so. If the safety of the mineworker is involved, I shall not for one moment hesitate to criticize that conduct. I have every reason, without apologizing for it, to pay tribute and to express my thanks and my appreciation, not my personal appreciation but that of the mineworkers whom I represent, to the Minister for his timely action in appointing a commission to inquire into safety in our mines. Nothing proves the timely appointment of this commission more than the very contents of this report. The hon. members of the Opposition are not happy about this. I now wish to appeal to all the hon. members of the Opposition not to exploit the position of the mineworker for petty political purposes.

Hear, hear!

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) says “hear, hear”, because he is really, not theoretically but in practice, the leader of the United Party. If I have followed this debate correctly up to this stage, then those hon. members are using this Vote only for the purpose of making a little puerile political capital out of it. I say that in debates of this nature the safety of the mineworker must be the main consideration and persons must not be protected. If there are persons who jeopardize the safety of the mineworker by their negligence, irrespective of who those persons may be, we cannot retain them in their positions. This whole report testifies to that. The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. G. van Wyk) has referred to paragraph 24 of this report. It contains much of importance to me. It shows how in past years, before the Coalbrook disaster occurred, confidence was lost in the department of the mining engineer. I am not talking about a person; I am talking about a principle. It is immaterial to me who that person is. I am not mentioning names here. I hope hon. members will agree with me when I say that if any person who occupies this position does not gain the confidence of the mineworker owing to his actions, steps should be taken against such a person. If that hon. member were a businessman I would ask him whether he would retain the services of a manager if a commission for which he has the greatest respect were to submit such a report on that manager?

I repeat that we are concerned here with the safety of the mineworker. I should like to say something here this afternoon and that is that I regard the mineworker as a very special person, not necessarily because he is a different kind of person from any other person, but because he works under special conditions. He works for two reasons: In the first place, it is his livelihood; he has to work there; he earns his livelihood 6,000-8,000 feet underground. In the second place, he renders a special service to the country. He has to be regarded otherwise than the worker above ground. I hope my friends opposite who also represent mineworkers agree with my proposition.

I listened to the hon. member for Springs last night, this morning, and even after the lunch-hour. His attitude does not reveal concern for the mineworker but only for an individual.

And if an individual is dealt with unfairly?

The hon. member for Yeoville has fled from other constituencies and fortuitously ended up on the Rand. He knows nothing about the mineworker and his needs.

I am prepared to fight you anywhere on the East Rand in connection with this matter.

This commission which was appointed by the Minister, received certain terms of reference to inquire into certain matters. I wish to pay tribute to the members of this commission who submitted this honest report; we appreciate it. It divulged something to all of us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) yesterday took half an hour to criticize the hon. the Minister because he did not table this report sooner. But at this stage I should like to thank the hon. the Minister of Mines and his Department for having in the meantime given effect to some of the most important recommendations. They did not adopt the recommendations theoretically only, but gave effect to them. A short while ago members of the House of Assembly were invited to pay a visit to the mines. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow either the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) or the hon. gentleman who spoke previously on that side of the House except to say that both of them seem to me to be more concerned with protecting the Minister than with thinking of the unfortunate mineworkers who work underground and of those whose lives have been lost. They also seem to have failed to appreciate the gravity of the report. Somewhere in the report, I think on page 17, it says that there was panic, a near panic, in the Government Department. Imagine the state of affairs, Sir, if a judicial commission can put into print that a Department of the Government was in a state of near panic. Another thing that this report says is that the onus of responsibility for the care and safety of the mineworkers rests on the shoulders of the Government mining engineer. He cannot be divested of it. But it goes further and it says that because he carries that responsibility he must be given a free hand. It is at that point where the two hon. Ministers who worked with this gentleman during this period completely failed to appreciate how to treat a professional man acting in a professional capacity.

Did you know how to treat a man in 1937?

Mr. Chairman, what is past is past. I am not prepared to go back to 1937. It is true that the white-anting probably began in 1937 but its effects have been carrying on over the past seven or eight or nine years. They have steadily worsened. I saw in the newspaper a few days ago that there were two deaths a day in the mines. That is the average. You will appreciate, Sir, that it is a terrible state of affairs that in a great industry like this we have arrived at a point where there is an average of two deaths per day. And it comes about purely and entirely from the failure of the Minister to appreciate how to treat a professional man, how to allow him to act as a professional man when carrying out professional duties.

There is only one recommendation which is really important in this report and it is one of those which the Government, again failing to appreciate the fact, has failed to implement, and that is the first recommendation of the commission which says: “The status of the Government mining engineer should be restored to the pre-1937 level.” Secondly, Sir, we have the failure of the Government to appreciate the changing face of the Civil Service, something which is happening all over the world. The days when a well-educated man could enter the Civil Service and by dint of time and by dint of experience could learn to run a Department are gone. These great Departments like Health, Mines, Water Affairs and Veterinary Services where professional men are required need a change in plan. It has been worked out in the Western countries that it is no longer satisfactory, as it was in the early days of the century. Any intelligent man with a little education who joined the Senior Civil Service could be posted to any ministry and could confidently set about acquiring the necessary knowledge of the particular technology involved. Seldom would this take him longer than a year. Thereafter he was well equipped to make decisions advised from time to time by technical experts. The position has changed out of all recognition. Policy must be settled by the Minister but professional men must deal with professional problems. The great characteristic of the professional man is that he carries his own responsibility; he carries his own responsibility for his actions. He must be permitted to do so. We had the good fortune in 1908, in the early part of the century, to have a far-seeing Government in the Transvaal. They made rules for the mining engineer. They appreciated what this Government does not appreciate to-day and what the Ministers do not appreciate. They said in effect: This man must be appointed by the head of the State and only the head of the State can deal with him; he must be given a free hand; if he falls down he is responsible for his own actions. This Minister and the previous Minister, however, interfered with this man. They lowered his status. They did not even allow him to choose his own subordinates or to have a say in the choosing of his own subordinates. Any man who carries the lives of other people in his hand must be allowed to act on his own responsibility; the Minister does not carry those lives in his hands. It is there where this Minister has fallen down and where his predecessor has fallen down. They have shown a complete and crass ignorance of the way in which they should allow responsible people to act responsibly. It is a very curious thing in this Government that the two men who should be looking after the lives of people are both given two portfolios. The same state of affairs exists in the Health Department. Both these Ministers have been given two onerous Departments.

To illustrate I want to point out what has happened in Great Britain. It is not always easy to get information but in Great Britain the head of the Department of Health, not the Minister …

Order! The hon. member should have discussed that under the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to show how this hon. Minister has fallen down and failed to appreciate the importance of the engineer who is in his Department. If you will permit me, Sir, I want to quote the set-up of the Department of Health in Great Britain which is a parallel …

No, that is not relevant.

Very well, Sir. I will only say that the head of the Department of Health in Great Britain has a salary higher than that of the Prime Minister because he is a professional man responsible, as is the Government mining engineer, for the health and safety of the people in the country. It is time that the whole set-up of the professional Departments of this Government were reorganized. It is a tragedy, not a tragedy from which good may not perhaps come, that this should have happened. This accumulation of tragedies over the years culminating in the Coalbrook disaster has drawn attention to the grave defect in the service organization of this country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban Central (Dr. Radford) said that the post of the Government mining engineer should be regarded as a wholly professional post, and that there should not be any control or supervision on the part of the Minister. Now let us look at the finding of the commission itself in this connection. In paragraphs 41 and 42 reference is made to the appointment of the Government mining engineer by the State President. It continues—

That is what the commission found: He had to perform his duties even without reference to the Minister. The interpretation is that he need not refer to the Minister at all. The hon. member for Durban (Central) says it is correct. But the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) comes along and says they did not refer to each other sufficiently. What do they want now? They do not themselves know what they want. On the one hand the hon. member for Durban (Central) rises and says he must be independent, like a professional man, and then the hon. member for Springs says they did not consult each other sufficiently and he mentions the few occasions on which they saw each other; he is quite wrong there. In paragraph 42 the commission says this—

The commission says that is the position. But when the commission finds in para. 24 that there are many things wrong, among other things that other factors contributed to the almost complete failure of the division to meet the crisis precipitated by the Coalbrook disaster, in other words, if there is a crisis, then the hon. member is not satisfied that the Government mining engineer should have the sole responsibility without reference to the Minister, then the hon. member rises and says “there was near panic in the Government Department”; not in the Government mining engineer’s department where he has sole responsibility, but in the whole Department of State. So, when things are going well, then it is the Government mining engineer, but when things go wrong with the Government mining engineer, then the Government is to blame. That is the conclusion to which the hon. member has come.

The commission found that as regards the safety of the mines he should act without reference to the Minister, without consultation. But what if he does not act? Has the hon. member read the finding in paragraph 11? There the finding is that there had been complaints about gas and that the then Government mining engineer did not comply with the regulations. The commission found that the people for whose safety he was responsible were dissatisfied. They received no satisfaction. What are they to do then? To whom must they go then? Surely it is right that they should go to the Minister. To whom else could they go? Or does the hon. member want them to go to the State President and say: “Look, here is a Government mining engineer who does not take action; will you please intervene Must the State President now intervene in administrative matters? Surely he knows that is not the function of the State President. Nor was it the function of the Governor-General.

May I ask a question? The hon. the Minister has referred to paragraph 11. The inspector who was appointed over the head of the existing inspector to institute the inquiry submitted his report. That report was forwarded to the Minister. Was it ever referred to the Government mining engineer or to the trade union concerned?

Yes, it was. It was submitted to the Government mining engineer. It has been argued that the Government mining engineer should act on his own and I asked where these people should seek satisfaction if they were dissatisfied. In para. 16 the commission refers to the accident at the President Steyn mine. The inquiry was delayed; again there was dissatisfaction. If a man who has that independent power acts in this way, surely it is then the duty of the Minister to intervene? The Government mining engineer acts not only in a professional capacity; he acts here on behalf of the State to look after the safety of the mineworkers. That is his duty. The function the State assumes is to see that the regulations are complied with. The point is this: Certain duties are imposed upon the mine managements. They are the people who are primarily responsible for seeing that those regulations are carried out. It is their duty—they must do so. And it is the duty of the inspector to see to it that they do so. But the first duty, primarily, is that of the mine managements and not that of any other body or person.

Much has been said about the post of the Government mining engineer. I shall now proceed to deal with the recommendations of the report. I have shown which recommendations have been accepted, some of them even before the report was brought out, and some subsequently. Here are certain important recommendations as regards the post of the Government mining engineer. One of those recommendations is that the Government mining engineer should also be the Secretary of Mines. Let me say at once that on the face of it there seems to be something in this, but there are cardinal problems involved if effect were to be given to that recommendation. The Government mining engineer’s main function is to look after the safety in the mines. Apart from that he, as one of the three senior technical officers who are employed in the whole greater mine complex in so far as the State is concerned, has a number of other functions of a technical nature, but safety in the mines is one of his main functions. If this man were now also to be the Secretary of Mines, he would have to assume numerous other additional functions. This commission’s terms of reference did not include an examination of the Department as a whole; they did not check what the other functions were: they did not have such an instruction and they did not investigate it. It was quite outside the scope of their terms of reference.

Let us see what those functions are. There are eight important divisions falling under the Secretary of Mines. There is in the first instance that of the Government mining engineer. There is the division of Geological Survey; there is Metallurgical Research; there are Mining Leases; there is the Atomic Power Board; there is the Medical Bureau and there is the Pneumoconiosis Board; there is also the State Diggings at Alexander Bay. Apart from that the Secretary has a mass of administrative functions affecting the whole Department. So from the very nature of things it is impossible for any person who is the Government mining engineer to assume all these other duties in addition to his own. If he were to assume these functions he would be holding a full-time administrative position to administer this whole big Department, and to act as the liaison with the Minister. So if he were to assume that post also, it is clear that he would not be able to take active steps as Government mining engineer and then those functions would have to be entrusted to an Assistant Government mining engineer. So nothing is achieved. It may well be argued that the Secretary of Mines should be a technical man. But there is nothing to stop him becoming that. There is nothing to stop the Government mining engineer also becoming the Secretary of the Department, and another Government mining engineer then being appointed in his stead. On the contrary, in the past there have been people who could have occupied that position with credit. It may be so in future too. I think it is clear that nothing will be solved by placing these two posts under one man, because then another person must act as the true, active Government mining engineer. He will then have to be the Assistant Government mining engineer or something similar. But quite apart from the Government mining engineer having to be the Secretary also, in terms of this recommendation, it is recommended in fact that Geological Survey also should be placed under his control. So his functions must be extended still further. He will therefore be able to devote still less attention to safety in the mines than at present. I shall go into that further. The fact remains that the Government mining engineer has a particular function, and the Secretary has a particular function, and it is impossible for one person to occupy those two posts simultaneously.

Let me say something now about this matter of the taking over of Geological Survey. That also is one of the recommendations which is not being adopted. This recommendation flows from the finding of the commission in which they say when the Coalbrook disaster occurred there was no consultation with Geological Survey. But the whole matter and the report too were submitted to the person in charge of Geological Survey, and I have all his comments upon it here. He says that one can only render assistance when asked to. do so, which of course is quite correct. He says this—

In the case of the Clydesdale North mine disaster the position was actually that in my absence from office, due to my attendance of a congress, my Deputy on my behalf communicated with the Government mining engineer telephonically to inquire whether the geological survey could be of any assistance, no such approach having been made by the Government mining engineer. His response to our inquiry was one of scepticism. Despite this we decided to initiate an investigation which, as is now generally known, was much more detailed than any by mining geologists.

Then this report itself draws attention to this. In para. 76 of this report, the commission points out that the acting Government mining engineer himself recommended that this should be done, that Geological Survey should be placed under the Government mining engineer. We also have here the evidence of the Government mining engineer in which he said—

In this report reference is made to the fact that co-operation has already been achieved between the three technical divisions, that of the Government mining engineer, Geological Survey and the Metallurgical Division. Those are the chief technical officers of the Department. They meet regularly for discussions. And this arrangement complies with the recommendation in question. But I also wish to point out that Geological Survey has a much wider function than this one. Not only do they assist in indicating water, but they make a geological survey of the whole country, and the fact that it is linked up, as recommended, will not have the effect that their assistance will be used more in this connection. On the contrary, a geologist cannot determine rock fractures; he cannot determine the strength of pillars. That is the function of the Government mining engineer and you will find that a man who does not have an advanced knowledge of geology, will never be appointed as Government mining engineer. It is simply impossible to do so. So he himself has geological knowledge which is necessary to determine safety in mines, and wherever necessary, geological assistance may be invoked at any time. Therefore there is no need at all to place Geological Survey under this post.

But there is another recommendation, namely that the Government mining engineer’s status should be changed so that he does not fall under the Public Service Regulations. Here I should like once again to refer to the paragraphs I quoted just now, which indicated the position of the Government mining engineer. But the fact is that the Government mining engineer’s status did not change to this extent since 1937. He did, it is true, receive a lower salary then. Hon. members opposite perhaps know better why that happened. But you will observe that later on in this report there is a comparative table of the salary of the Government mining engineer and that of the secretary, and it appears from that that in the ’forties these salaries were similar. Reference has been made to the present salary here, it being indicated in the Estimates that the Government mining engineer’s salary is R6,800 and that of the secretary is R8,100. Let me say at once that this is not the true state of affairs. At the end of last year the Public Service Commission recommended that the salaries of heads of Departments be increased to R8,100. That recommendation has been included in the Estimates. Further recommendations were made subsequently, namely that the position of the Government mining engineer and that of, inter alia, the Commissioner for Internal Revenue, should also be increased to the same scale as that of the heads of Departments. In fact the position is that since 1 January, the Government mining engineer as well as the secretary each receive R8,100. So their salaries are exactly the same since the date of the increase. That recommendation came too late to be included in the Estimates, but he is receiving the same salary, and if it cannot be supplemented from savings under some sector of the Vote, supplementary provision will have to be made for it. Therefore there is no difference at the moment in the salary scale. The fact of the matter is that even prior to 1937 the true control of the Department of Mines was vested in the Secretary of Mines and the Government mining engineer never was independent of the Public Service. The fact of the matter is that there are other persons who are also appointed by the State President. The Master of the Supreme Court is appointed in that manner, but that does not detach him and his staff from the Public Service Commission, as is recommended here. On the contrary, I believe that nowhere in the world will you find a position that your Government mining engineer is detached from the Public Service Commission. Does it now mean that if he is detached he may appoint officials at salaries which are completely unconnected with the rest of the Public Service?

What does the law say?

I do not quite agree that the position is as is stated there, and I shall tell you why. For instance, there is another provision in the Gold Law to the effect that the Minister may give directions to the Government mining engineer, which is not referred to here. He has never in the past been unconnected with the Public Service. He and his whole staff has always been regarded as being subject to the regulations of the Public Service Commission. I should like to put this question to the hon. member: Do you agree with the further recommendation here that the Government mining engineer should also be the secretary of the Department?

Yes.

Then I take it that your party agrees that these two posts should be one? Now I should like to ask you this: You want the Government mining engineer to be unconnected with the Public Service. Now you also want him to be secretary of the Department. In what kind of a position are you going to find yourself if the head of the Department were to be unconnected with the Public Service, if he were not under the control of the Minister? In what position are you going to find yourself if he were to be such a professional man as the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has urged that he should be? What is going to happen then? Surely that is an untenable position. Now, according to this recommendation, the Geological Survey must also be transferred and be unconnected with the Minister or the Department. What about his staff? Must the entire staff of his Department, the entire Geological Survey, be detached? What about the Atomic Power Board, which also falls under it? Must they also be detached from the Public Service? Must this important sector of the economy be detached? No, Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that that recommendation is completely unrealistic, to say the least of it. It never had regard to the office of Secretary of Mines as it is in practice. They did not investigate it; they did not go into it. It was not their function. But this recommendation they are making is a far-reaching one in connection with the entire Departmental structure, and they surely never appreciated that when they made this recommendation.

As regards his pension, he falls under the Public Service completely. So we cannot accept the recommendation in that regard either. As regards his status, there the position is as follows. His salary is equivalent to that of the secretary. So there is no difference. An arrangement has been made that the Government mining engineer shall have direct access to the Minister, and he has had this since that time. He need not always operate through the secretary; and as regards the Minister himself, he may at any time, without consultation with the Secretary of Mines, consult the Government mining engineer direct. That arrangement, which is now the existing arrangement, applies not only in respect of the Government mining engineer, but also for the Geological survey and Metallurgical Research. So, as regards these three technical divisions, and it also applies to the Atomic Power Board, it is an existing arrangement that anyone of the four has the same direct access to the Minister of Mines as the Secretary for Mines has. So in that respect their status is not such that one is subordinate to the other. That is how it is applied in practice. So without bringing about the organizational and functional integration of one under the other, the status of the Government mining engineer as regards his relationship to the Minister, is not subordinate to that of the secretary of the Department.

Will the hon. the Minister also deal with (c) as regards explosives?

Yes, as regards the recommendation that explosives should also fall under the Government mining engineer, that was the position until 1937. The Department of Commerce and Industries was then established and the handling of explosives is one of the things which were entrusted to the newly established Department. If fell under Mines before. Since that time, therefore, Commerce and Industries has been responsible for the handling of this particular Department. As a result of this recommendation, the Public Service Commission has enquired into whether it could more advantageously be placed there. At the moment that position still obtains. Effect has not been given to it, but a change has been made in one respect, and that is as regards the supply of explosives to the mines. That part, the supply and the handling thereof, has been entrusted to the Government mining engineer. So I think that solves the problem in this regard. Whether or not it will ultimately be transferred fully, is not yet settled, because it also deals with the manufacture of explosives, security measures, inspection, handling, and other factors which really have nothing to do with mining as such.

There is another recommendation (4) that the division of the Government mining engineer should be moved to Pretoria. The fact of the matter is, however, that from the functional, strategic and organizational point of view, the division of the Government mining engineer ought really to be on the Rand. That is the very heart of our mining industry. The mining houses are stationed there. The consulting engineers are in Johannesburg, those people who have to deal with the Government mining engineer all day long. But apart from that, it is the headquarters too of the mineworkers’ organizations. Therefore there are many reasons why the position should remain as it is. If it were transferred to Pretoria, it would have certain disadvantages, but the fact of the matter is that even if it were transferred, it would not bring about greater access to the Minister for the Government mining engineer. As a result of this functional change, without legislation, since the Government mining engineer has direct access to the Minister, he may avail himself of it at any time, and whether he is in Pretoria or in Johannesburg, it will make no difference in this regard. It is a fact that for six months the Minister is in any case not in Pretoria, but in Cape Town. Then the Government mining engineer is in his offices in Pretoria, and the actual activities are in Johannesburg. I think there is much to be said in favour of retaining the status quo. The Government mining engineer has indicated that he is prepared to abide by it if that is decided upon, but after due consideration it was decided to retain the status quo. It has been said here too that the Government mining engineer should be present when the Mines Vote is discussed here in the House of Assembly. That is the present position. He is here and that procedure will also be adopted in future.

I should like to refer here to certain questions put to me by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). I think I am stating the position correctly, that he wishes to know: “Whether the same inspector who was called in over the head of the Government mining engineer by the Minister, was suspended and was having his case investigated by the Public Service Commission?” He also wished to know “Why it was several years before this action was taken?” Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that this person is an official who made the inquiries at the request of the trade union. That person also was appointed by the Minister at the time after consultation with the Government mining engineer. It was at a stage when there was a lack of confidence. It was at a stage when complete chaos prevailed, as the commission itself found. Here was a person in whom the mineworkers had confidence. He acted on other occasions, and they believed he was a person who was guarding their safety. Unfortunately there were other problems. The mine management complained about that person. Therefore the position arose that as regards safety on the mines, as there was a clash between the approach of the mine management and that of the Mineworkers’ Union, a person had to be found to give complete satisfaction, and that was extremely difficult. But he was asked to make that investigation because it was felt that he enjoyed the confidence of the mineworkers themselves. On the other hand, the Mine Managers’ Association again was dissatisfied with that. However, the mineworkers had confidence in him. Thereafter it appeared that he had certain shortcomings. His patience was somewhat lacking at times. He acted when he found something was not right, but it is alleged that he did so in a manner that is not expected of a Government official. Complaints began to pour in, and in consequence of that he was suspended, pending an inquiry of certain complaints made against him. Those complaints began in recent times, and he was suspended a month ago, pending an investigation. A procedure as laid down in the Public Service Regulations for any inquiry, and it applies to him also. The hon. member said here “a certain district inspector was sent to London at the request of the man who was subject to investigation”.

At the request of Mr. Ellis.

That is not correct. This matter has no connection with the transfer of Mr. Myburgh to London. The then incumbent of the position in London was there for years and it was his turn to be eligible for promotion, and he was then appointed assistant Government mining engineer, which is a high position in the Department. As far as our knowledge goes, there was no appeal to the Minister to make this change.

May I just ask whether the contents of paragraph 19 of the report is incorrect then, where it is said—

The Government mining engineer informs me that that finding was definitely not correct. Thirdly the hon. member said: “The Minister vetoed the procedure in fatal accidents involving prosecutions whereby the Government mining engineer investigated the report before it went to court, and thus could check any prosecutions on flimsy evidence. Because of this the Government mining engineer was blamed for instituting needless prosecutions”.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Minister did veto this procedure. In the past the Government mining engineer checked reports on fatal accidents before they went to the Mining Tribunal. I have been informed that that procedure was adopted in order to prevent the case coming before the Tribunal on insufficient evidence. But it is a fact that in inquiries affecting mining officials the procedure is very technical and very comprehensive, and that is why this was the procedure. But objections were raised with the Minister against that procedure because the same procedure had not been adopted in instances where mineworkers themselves had committed an offence. They felt that there had been some discrimination, and in consequence of the representations made to him the Minister ordered that this procedure be discontinued.

The hon. member further asked three important questions, namely, whether it was true that—

The next relevant sentence is this—

And next—

The fact of the matter is that this report itself shows that a few years prior to Coalbrook feelings were already beginning to build up against the post and the office of the then Government mining engineer, and he himself came to the conclusion that the crisis then existing was of such a nature that after Coalbrook it could not be coped with. So at the time of the Coalbrook mine disaster there was a tremendously strong feeling against the office of the Government mining engineer. The mineworkers were bitterly dissatisfied, and the outside world sympathized with the mineworkers in this disaster. Therefore it was not unreasonable that this organization of mineworkers, through the medium of Mr. Ellis, demanded certain action. They made certain demands upon the Minister which he had to try to satisfy among other things, the appointment of a commission, and further, that the Government mining engineer should be suspended. The hon. member referred to the telegram, “For heaven’s sake suspend this man immediately The hon. member wishes to know whether that is so? It is correct. Mr. Ellis did send a telegram, asking that he be suspended immediately. That is correct.

That is scandalous.

The hon. member says it is scandalous, but he is prepared for Mr. Dalling to be suspended pending an inquiry.

So are you.

Yes, I am satisfied with both. It is right, when a person acts in an important capacity and there are complaints of a serious nature, that an inquiry should be instituted. In this case there were complaints of such a nature that it was surely the duty of the Minister to heed them. He had no right to ignore that request. The fact that a person is suspended does not mean that he will be found guilty. If he is suspended, steps are taken against him under the Public Service Regulations which apply to any public servant, even to the Secretary of a Department, so if action had been taken here pursuant to this request, the same facilities would have been available to the Government mining engineer. He would have been informed of the charge; he would have been given an opportunity to refute the charge, he could have submitted his evidence to a commission, and in the event of a conviction action would have been taken under the Public Service Regulations, either in the form of a reduction of salary or in the form of demotion or as regards pension benefits. So action could have been taken under the Public Service Regulations. That telegram was sent. In view of the state of affairs found by the commission to exist in the mining industry, as summarized in paragraph 24, action was taken and that request emanating at that stage from the mineworkers I do not regard as scandalous at all. But what happened? The Minister did not act in terms of the telegram. The Minister did not suspend him. The Minister informed him: “Look, we have received this request. A commission is going to be appointed, a commission of inquiry into the whole matter”. The hon. member shakes his head. The person who conveyed that message to him was the Secretary of Mines. It is his information I am now giving you. He put it to him: “Here is the request of the mineworkers; there are the Public Service Regulations. What must be done? I have to take notice of it, and if you are satisfied that you are completely innocent you may remain in your post subject to suspension and the finding of that commission On the other hand he had good cause to say he was resigning. He was already older than 55 years. He could therefore have resigned from the Public Service, had he wished to. He was then told that he could consider the matter. And, possibly after himself consulting other people, he intimated the next day that he preferred to resign with a pension. He addressed a letter to the Minister in which he confirmed this, and as a result there were negotiations with the Public Service Commission and he received, as regards his pension, the maximum benefits which he would have received had he served until the end of his period of office. So in the circumstances he was dealt with as kindly as possible. It was not maintained that there were irregularities. The Minister himself helped him to get the maximum benefits possible under those circumstances.

I think that then disposes of all the main points in connection with this matter.

Questions have also been put here in regard to appeals, appeals by companies against the closing of mines recommended by an inspector. Four such appeals have been upheld. The appeal against the closing of Coalbrook North did not succeed. The appeal in connection with Coalbrook South succeeded partially. The appeal in regard to two sections of mines at Witbank succeeded, and then there was a successful appeal in respect of Koringfontein mines.

May I deal with only one more question. I have been asked why this report did not appear sooner, in view of the fact that it had already been signed on 20 December 1960. The fact of the matter is that this report appeared towards the end of December 1960. In 1961 it was submitted to the then Minister, and at the beginning of 1962 the chairman of the commission wrote to the Minister asking what he intended to do in regard to the publication of the report. The Minister then pointed out to him that this was an interim report and asked when the final report could be expected. Thereupon the chairman told the Minister that this interim report could be regarded as final. These replies were received only in September, and immediate steps were then taken to have the report translated, to submit it to the State President, and to have it printed. Thereafter it was Tabled in this House. Originally it was considered that this was merely an interim report and that another, final report was to follow and that it was quite possible, therefore, that the final report might amend the interim report in certain respects. Therefore the Minister wished to delay the publication of the interim report until such time as the final reports were available.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the majority of the recommendations contained therein have been implemented. The commission in fact issued the report for the very reason that it contained some important recommendations of an urgent nature. As I have indicated already, two-thirds of those recommendations have already been adopted. So at an early stage already effect was given to the recommendations. Whether or not the report had been published, it made no difference at all to the implementation of those recommendations. As regards the legislation that is required to give effect to some of the recommendations, that legislation is ready. At one stage there was even talk of introducing it this Session, but once again the Minister considered it would be better to wait until the final report was available. In any event, this legislation is now ready, and we hope to put it before the House early next Session.

The hon. member for Springs wished to know why the evidence submitted to the commission cannot be made available. Hon. members will see from paragraph 7 of the commission’s report that the commission itself did not regard it as feasible to do so. The commission states—

In the circumstances the Minister decided to adhere to this statement, and not to publish the evidence.

Although I do not propose following upon the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should like to say that his explanation for not having brought forward this most important report earlier does not convince this House at all. As we all know, this is a matter of the greatest importance—not only to the members of this House but also to the whole country. It was a matter which should have been brought to the attention of this House, and to the attention of the people outside, as soon as it was placed in the hands of the Minister. The trouble of the Department of Mines has been that it has had a series of three Ministers within a period of five years. This Department has been treated by the Government as a Cinderella. Consequently, there could not have been any continuity between one Minister and another. When Dr. van Rhyn left, he had no conception at all of what his successor was going to do. The present Minister took over from the hon. Senator de Klerk. What has been the result? The result has been that within five years we have had two Acts in regard to pneumoconiosis. The first one was described by Dr. van Rhyn as a model one. He claimed that it could not be improved upon and that it was drawn up by the best possible people. But it proved to be a total failure. What did the hon. Senator de Klerk do about this? Did he do anything? The present Minister at least made an attempt to take those steps which this side of the House asked him to take. But under what circumstances did the Bill come before this House last year? Virtually at the end of the session. It was placed before us for discussion on the eve of the Minister’s departure for overseas. When I asked him to accept amendments, what did he say? He said it was difficult to accept amendments because he had to leave for overseas.

He said it was an agreed measure.

I only have ten minutes at my disposal and I am not going to take that up by reading from Hansard. Let me, however, refer hon. members to Columns 6771, 6772 and 6794. Let them read what the Minister said there. The hon. the Minister will admit that he said it was inconvenient for him to accept amendments because then the whole Bill would have to be reprinted and for that there was no time. I do not want any member on that side of the House to tell us that it was an agreed measure as far as this side of the House is concerned. We voted against some of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said that we accepted the recommendations. We did nothing of the kind. He cannot get away with that. He does not even remember what happened as recently as last year. Only one year and he has already forgotten.

To me it is obvious that the whole Department is in trouble. It cannot carry out its functions properly. There seems to me to be total disorganization and total lack of cohesion between the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the Department. I can well imagine what difficulties the Department has to deal with when it is controlled by one Minister after another. What is the position to-day in this respect? We have two Ministers dealing with one measure. We have the Deputy Minister taking over the work of the Minister of Mines. Why should that be? Obviously there is too much work to do. The Deputy Minister says that there are eight Departments to look after. Sir, if we want the Department of Mines to work efficiently, there must only be one Minister in control of it. That Minister must not hand over any of his work in that field to either the Deputy Minister or to any other person. He has got to do it himself. The position the Government mining engineer is being placed in to-day is most invidious. We have to accept that there is a difference between liaison and co-operation, and interference. What we want is cooperation and liaison between the Department and the Government mining engineer and not interference with his work. That is all we are asking for. If that can be done, you will have an efficient service. But the way things are going, we find that the person most adversely affected is the mineworker. Not only is his life endangered by accidents but also by pneumoconiosis. He therefore is subject to a double danger. Day after day we hear of the deaths which are taking place. The Chamber of Mines has to have a hospital to deal with the accidents that occur every day. Some mines, it is true, have an accident free record but that is thanks to no one else than the officials of those particular mines.

The Minister has now to make up his mind to do a bit of reorganization. In this connection I need not go further than what is stated in this interim report. It is damning and it is our job to get down to repairing the damage which has been done over the past ten to 15 years. At that I want to leave the matter, and go over to one or two other matters which we cannot avoid discussing. This concerns the Pneumoconiosis Act as it is at the moment.

I want particularly to deal with the pneumoconiosis and the sufferer who contracts tuberculosis. I do not like the Minister’s grading and I do not like the way in which the Minister has shelved his responsibilities towards the tuberculosis sufferer. As the Act reads now, it means that even though a miner contracts tuberculosis following upon pneumoconiosis or not, if he is cured of the tuberculosis he is no longer the burden of the State. I want the Minister to realize one fact in this connection, and that is that this man would not have contracted tuberculosis if he did not have pneumoconiosis. It is my feeling that those people working on the mines contract tuberculosis because of the already damaged lung which causes that lung to be far more easily contaminated than previously.

Now for the first time are you adopting a sensible attitude.

That is why I want the Minister to continue holding himself responsible for the welfare of the tuberculosis sufferer.

Another thing we voted against when the Bill was discussed was the stages upon which the Minister decided. He ought to know that he will have to alter these stages because they are impracticable. He knows that the third stage does not under the present provisions get the required benefits. He said last year that his desire was not so much to look after the first stage sufferer and that the benefits should rather go to the second and third stage sufferers [Time limit.]

I should like to revert to what the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said. Before doing so I should like to point out that the hon. member for Rosettenville, who has just resumed his seat, said that the Pneumoconiosis Act which was before the House last year was the result of recommendations emanating from their side of the House.

The Minister also said that.

At the same time, however, he also condemns the Act. Now I should like to point out how inconsistent they are there. With a voice shaking with emotion and shuddering with pious indignation the hon. member for Germiston (District) went into action against this measure.

Against certain provisions.

The impression he created here last night was that he protested to high Heaven against the whole Act. But one could not help feeling that it was nothing but feigned indignation. Last night he relied on the fact that they had heard at that time that it was an agreed measure, and for that reason they supported the measure. So they are now hiding behind that excuse. One cannot do otherwise but to accuse them of negligence in not ascertaining whether or not that was the truth. When the hon. member was carrying on like that, I thought I was making a mistake in thinking they had supported the measure. I then referred to the Hansard debates, and found that they did in fact accept the principle of the Bill at the second reading, and that they voted for the third reading also. So they supported the measure. They not only supported it, but sometimes they became quite enthusiastic about it. The hon. member had this to say about it (Hansard of 1962, Col. 6621)—

In Col. 6622 he said this—

The hon. member for Rosettenville this afternoon also took up a strong attitude against this measure. Now I find he had the following to say. Ironically enough, the following words occur in that speech (Col. 6629)—

Yes, Hansard is dangerous indeed and the hon. member for Germiston (District) also surely realizes it now to his regret. However, the hon. member for Rosettenville will also by and by realize that to his regret, because he had the following to say in regard to the measure in question—

That is the measure they have condemned so much this evening. It is clear also from this quotation that the hon. member did not wish to allow any credit to go to the hon. the Minister. No, he then gave all the credit to the people who worked behind the scenes. However, later on he tried to put this matter right. In Column 6631 the following words of his are recorded—

So here he paid a little tribute to the Minister also.

By that I meant I did not wish to see another change.

Actually this measure which was passed last year, was a revolutionary measure. As regards the determination of the damage inflicted upon the health of the mineworker by pneumoconiosis, there was a switch-over from the old unscientific basis of certification, namely the ability to do manual labour, to the new, modern and scientific basis of impairment of the cardio-respiratory function, that is to say, heart-lung impairment, as we call it in ordinary language. However, the Minister intimated that this was not the end. He said it was a new order, but at the same time he said that this was not the end of progress in that respect. That measure was only the beginning, he said. The Minister also undertook to take this House into his confidence after the lapse of some time and to tell us how the implementation of the new Act is progressing. In that regard, I think that time has perhaps now arrived. We should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how things are progressing. Can he tell us what he has heard from the mine workers themselves on this matter, that is to say, whether or not there is satisfaction among them. I convened a meeting on this matter in my own constituency, and the impression I gained there is that apparently there is general satisfaction. However, there were certain misgivings. One of the matters raised—and here I must agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville—is the matter raised by the hon. member, namely that the mineworkers are dissatisfied because tuberculosis is no longer regarded as an occupational disease. They say it may be that tuberculosis is not a direct occupational disease. However, indirectly it is an occupational disease. In any event, that is their reasoning. They say their lungs are weakened by the dusty and bad conditions under which they are working. Accordingly their lungs no longer have the same degree of resistance as the lungs of people living in the open air. So they are more susceptible to tuberculosis. They want tuberculosis to be regarded in this light and to be accepted as an occupational disease in that sense. [Time limit.]

For many years now we on this side of the House have been advancing the case of the marginal mines by emphasizing their importance to the country. In this connection I want to go back to 1956 to illustrate how we have constantly endeavoured to get the Government to move in this matter, and at the same time to show what effect a constant change of Ministers has on policy when a particular Department is being regarded as a Cinderella. In the years 1956 and 1957 we were told by the then Minister of Mines that the question of marginal mines was under very close scrutiny, and that he had arranged for a conference to be held in regard to the matter—often referred to as the round table conference. In 1958 this report was out and we pressed the Minister once more. This time it was a new Minister. He then referred to this report, and said that he intended seeing the Cabinet and asking it for support in connection with a proposition that certain railway charges be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In 1959 we still had the same Minister. He was again pressed closely on the matter, but all we could then get out of him was that he was going into the matter very closely. In 1961 we still had the same Minister. He told us in that year that he could not recommend help through the Railways. He said that a difference in railway rates could not be made to benefit only one section of the community. He claimed that a pneumoconiosis adjustment would help these mines, but forgot to mention that this was due purely to an actuarial adjustment in the fund which had been contributed to by the mines in question.

You see that we have been pressing this matter every year. Every year we pointed out the dangers and the importance of the matter to the country. At any rate, in 1961 the Minister told us that he could not get the support of the Minister of Railways because the Minister of Transport said he could not assist at the expense of his own Department only. The Minister of Transport has my fullest sympathies in that.

In 1958, however, another Minister told us that he was going to the Cabinet to see whether special assistance could not be given from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Then in 1962 we got a new Minister of Mines. He in turn said that the existence of a marginal mine was of great importance from the point of view of the community established round about that mine in so far as their employment was concerned. Furthermore, there was the question of the loss of currency, currency which that mine could otherwise earn. At last we got someone who exhibited a bit of intelligence in his approach to the problem of marginal mines, a problem which was getting greater and greater every day. That then brought a ray of light. [Quorum.] I did not notice that a quorum was not present as I was concentrating on what I was saying. I must submit that it is a most extraordinary state of affairs that on a Vote like this there should be only nine Nationalist members present, only one of whom is connected with the Reef and the mining industry. And we are dealing with a Vote which affects the prosperity and the lives of every one on the Reef.

At any rate, I was saying that a ray of light shone through last year. After all the years of vain struggle we at last heard some intelligent expression from the Minister concerned. Then in 1963 the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that he was appointing a Cabinet Committee to investigate this question of assistance to these marginal mines.

So we see that the whole history of this matter is a story of neglect and delay. The problem could not be appreciated. During seven years that was the position. It is not that we did not press it. On the contrary. Year after year we came with facts and figures to show how it would affect the country economically and how it would affect the people living in those areas. To prove, or rather, to reprove the importance of these mines to local communities, I should like to give some figures in connection with employment in an important town on the Reef. Of all the workers in that town 5,600 (i.e., 38 per cent) work on the mines; 3,200 (20 per cent) in industry; 6,000 (42 per cent) are otherwise employed. It is obvious that industry and the “otherwise employed” are largely dependent upon the mines in that area. The prolongation of the life of these marginal mines is inextricably interwoven with the industrial expansion which is so necessary, particularly in those particular areas.

In the circumstances, I should like to ask the Minister to tell us, when he replies, how far this Cabinet Committee has got. He should continue to press for their recommendations and findings as soon as possible. It is not necessary for them to call any witnesses. All the evidence which could possibly be required is already available. But we have been battling for years, and it is quite pleasant to feel that at last we may get somewhere. I want to repeat: This Government should realize the importance of the mines to this country. They are of sufficient importance to warrant being run by a Minister. It is not a job which should be divided between two men, but it should be one portfolio under one Minister. It is a very big job. It is not a job to be split between two men; it is a job for one man; it should be one portfolio.

In conclusion I want to read out an extract from a speech of Mr. Anderson, deputy chairman of Rand Mines at their annual meeting held on the 24th May, 1963. He says—

That quite obviously is a position which cannot continue for long. The shareholders have some rights and the country has a very, very great interest in the production of gold itself.

This report of Mr. Anderson’s speech shows again the gravity of the problem. I know that conflicting interests will have to be reconciled but they must be reconciled. There will be great difficulty in this country if something is not done in regard to these mines at a very early date, and I hope the Minister is going to tell us that within the next week or two we will have his final report as to how these mines are going to be helped.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) raised the matter of the marginal mines here, and I agree with him that it is a very important matter, and about which the Government has from time to time stated here and outside that it is very perturbed, and that it is looking for ways and means of extending the lives of those mines. I should like to tell the hon. member that the Government has, during the last few months particularly, made a very careful study of this problem to try to find a way out of our difficulties in this regard. The hon. member will agree with me that there are actually only two methods one could apply to lessen the burdens of those mines. The one is by obtaining a higher price for their product, and the other is to reduce their costs of production. We hope that we shall be able later on to secure a higher price for gold on the world market, but not all of these marginal mines can wait until that time. The question has now arisen whether a method cannot be found whereby the State could assist these mines by means of a subsidy by purchasing their gold at a higher price. That matter has also been investigated, and the Government eventually abandoned that idea, for the following reasons: In the first place the International Monetary Fund is opposed to such a scheme of buying gold at a higher price; the second is that the mines themselves are opposed to a subsidy, the mines do not like it, and the third reason is this: We found that even if we were to subsidize the gold production of the 20 or so marginal mines by a fairly big amount, very little extra gold would be produced and that the lives of the mines almost generally will be extended for one or two years only. Those studies have been worked out properly for every mine and for all the mines together. For that reason the Government has discarded the idea of a subsidy to assist the marginal mines. But there is another method, and that is to reduce the costs of production. That also is something about which the Government can do very little. The mines themselves have done much in recent times to reduce their costs of production. However, there is one aspect where the Government may now be able to find an opportunity to reduce the costs of production, and that is in regard to the water aspect. The hon. member is shaking his head.

I say it is not enough.

One of the greatest difficulties those mines on the East Rand and the Central Rand to-day have to cope with is the problem of water. When a certain mine closes, the problem is that its water after a certain time overflows to the neighbouring mine, and there is a chain reaction; later on more and more mines are affected and will have to close down owing to the increased cost involved in pumping the extra water flowing from the closed mines. The Government has decided that it is going to start with this aspect in giving assistance, and so I should like to announce to-day that the Government has decided that for the financial year 1 July 1963 to 30 June 1964 it will allot to the Central Rand and the nearby East Rand group of mines an amount of not more than R1,000,000 per annum to meet the cost of pumping out the water threatening them from the neighbouring closed mines, on the understanding that (1) only current expenses—no capital expenditure—are taken into consideration; (2) the Government Mining Engineer will control the expenditure and approve it and (3) only mines threatened with closure within five years of every annual allotment of aid will be considered; and (4) the Government does not commit itself for any period of time, but will review the position annually on the early submission of estimates, and in many cases if and when there is an increase in the price of gold. That is the first form of aid we are offering. We do not know what the exact amount will be, but the Government Mining Engineer estimates that the amount will vary, until the year 1980, between R630,000 to R1.8 million. We have decided to make available for the first year an amount of at least R1,000,000 on the conditions I have mentioned here to assist the marginal mines. I hope the hon. member will accept that as proof of the good faith and of the desire of the Government to assist the marginal mines. We realize that it will not provide all the assistance required, and solve all the problems, and we are now busy making a further investigation, on the basis of data we have just received, of further methods that may offer a solution to the problems of these mines.

As regards the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) I shall not go too deeply into the things he said here, but I gained the impression that the hon. member did not really know what he was talking about. The hon. member made a charge here which I regard as an accusation against myself, namely that there is no liaison between the Ministerial office and the office of the Government Mining Engineer; there has been too much interference on the part of the Minister. I do not know whether the hon. member may have been referring to the past, but if he is referring to the present, then I say he does not know what he is talking about and that he has no proof for his allegation. I may tell the hon. member that at the present time there is the most cordial co-operation between my office and the office of the Government Mining Engineer and other divisions of this Department, and that there is no question at all of any interference by the Minister’s office in the technical activities of the Government Mining Engineer. I think the hon. member did not know what he was talking about. He cannot produce any proof for his allegation.

He was referring to the past.

He may have been referring to the past, but he did not say so. The hon. member also made another mistake; I forgive him for making this mistake because I know that the Pneumoconiosis Act is not very easy to understand. He alleged that if you have pneumoconiosis as well as tuberculosis and if you are cured of the tuberculosis, you are no longer cared for by the State. That is not so. So the whole argument he built up on the basis of this allegation has no substance. Once you have had pneumoconiosis with tuberculosis, you receive the maximum pension and you retain that maximum pension.

Now I should like to come to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). The hon. member directed certain remarks to me last night which I cannot allow to pass and which I regard as extremely unkind if not unfair and unjust on the part of a member of the status of the hon. member for Germiston (District). He made an allegation here to the effect that last year, when I introduced the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Bill here. I misled the House, that I said things that were untrue, that I misrepresented the facts, and that they therefore voted for the measure. Mr. Chairman, those are very serious charges the hon. member has made. I reject it. The hon. member will forgive me if I deal with it further. He alleged here that I said “that it was an agreed measure” and that he subsequently found that this was not so. The hon. members of the Opposition must not try to back out now. They must not try to hide behind a big fig leaf by saying that I said last year that it was an agreed measure, and because of that they supported it, and that they have now found out that it was not an agreed measure and that they may therefore now back out. They supported that measure last year, here and in the Other Place, not because I said it was an agreed measure. They supported it because of their own convictions and because as the hon. members for Rosettenville and Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) said, it was really their Act; that it incorporated ideas they had propagated in this House for a long time. The hon. member for Germiston (District) will agree with me that they themselves could have ascertained, as the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) has said, whether it was an agreed measure or not. They had the opportunity to do so. They had access to the Chambers of Mines and the mineworkers’ trade unions and if they did not inquire whether it was an agreed measure they neglected their duty. But what is an agreed measure? It is not a measure the provisions of which are welcomed 100 per cent by the various parties; it is a measure on which people may have differed tremendously at the outset, but eventually after negotiations they mutually agree on those specific points. [Time limit.]

We have listened to attacks on the Department here this afternoon, attacks which in my opinion were completely uncalled for and completely unfounded, with great volubility but without any proof being adduced. I do not propose to go into this matter any further. I should however like to react to one small point, namely to what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has said. Among other things, he alleged here that a person does not contract tuberculosis unless he has already contracted pneumoconiosis.

That is not what I said.

I specially asked the hon. member to repeat it. Of course that statement is not correct. I should like to say a word or two on the other statement made by the hon. member and which the hon. the Minister has already corrected, and that is that if a person has pneumoconiosis and then contracts tuberculosis. he no longer receives a pension once he has been cured of tuberculosis. That also, as the hon. the Minister has just told us, is not true either.

While we are discussing these cases of tuberculosis, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether something special cannot be done for people suffering from tuberculosis. I admit that in my constituency this problem occurs among only a very small group of people, but they are faced with the problem that if they contract tuberculosis, a monthly amount is paid to them over a period of 12 or 18 months while they are undergoing treatment. When the person is cured, he is glad and very pleased but he finds that he cannot return to his employment. Now, medically that is correct; once a man has had tuberculosis, and he has been cured, he ought not to work in a dusty atmosphere again, but it is nevertheless a fact that it does not lessen this man’s problem. He finds then, usually in his middle-age, that he is unemployed and has a family to support. What makes his position more difficult is the fact that he has had no training in any other direction; he must confine himself to mining work only. It becomes impossible for him to find suitable alternative employment. Under those circumstances he then finds that he is without a livelihood. I say that the position of that person is completely different from the position of any other employee. If any other employee is cured of tuberculosis, he may return to his original employment, but here the difference is that the man cannot return. I should like this matter to be considered and attempts should be made to find what can be done for this person. His problem is twofold. If he is not cured and he is declared permanently unfit he is not entitled to a pension; he cannot demand an allowance then. It is true that his case can be met to some extent, but he is then at the mercy of the goodwill of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Board. The Board may meet him in accordance to his financial circumstances, but he cannot claim a pension as of right. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this matter. It is true that it is alleged that tuberculosis is not an occupational disease. We shall accept that, but on the other hand we must not forget that mining, as is stated in this report of the commission of inquiry regarding safety in the mines, is inherently dangerous to both life and health. It is unnatural employment which gives rise to unnatural conditions. All of us know that in spite of everything that is said, the circumstances under which the mineworkers have to work promote the contraction and the development of tuberculosis. I say that if it were not for the particularly thorough supervision exercised the percentage of tuberculosis would have been much greater, and therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to give special attention to this matter, and to see whether it is not possible, in spite of all the theories, to meet these people who really are in need, even if there are not many of them.

The hon. the Minister referred to the statement of mine yesterday that I had understood from him that this was an agreed measure. I certainly understood that last year. We found on returning to our constituencies that there was great feeling about the matter which the hon. the Minister knows about and that is the question of the lump-sum payment. The hon. the Minister was not here when the Committee Stage of this Bill was taken. I can tell the hon. the Minister that we were told there—and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) will remember it—that no amendments could be accepted because this was a completely agreed measure. I certainly had no intention of reflecting on the hon. the Minister’s bona fides, and I hope we can regard that particular issue as closed. Sir, I do hope that the hon. the Minister is going to tell us why this report, which is of such very great public interest, has not been made known earlier. I believe it would have been in the interests of the country if it had been made known at a very much earlier stage. I can still see no good reason—and there has certainly been no explanation to the Committee—as to why the report was not Tabled timeously as I believe these reports should be.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) accepted my word that I had not criticized or condemned the pneumoconiosis law last year. I think everybody agreed that that law was a considerable advance, but I do not think anybody will say that there are not gaps which we still hope will be filled. There are experimental provisions being made at the present time, as hon. members will know. I think we should all have regard in this matter to the interests of the miners who, as I said yesterday, have played a very important part indeed in the building up of this country doing tremendously dangerous work. We ought all to be prepared to do whatever we can to assist those people where in rendering that service to this country—and I say in all seriousness “to this country”—they find that their health has been impaired. Sir, I leave the matter there. I believe that the hon. member over there has been trying to raise another very important matter and I would like to give him the opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) will forgive me if I do not follow him because there is something to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention urgently. Last year I had occasion to bring to his notice certain unsatisfactory conditions prevailing at that time, and right up to the present day, on the blue asbestos mines in the North-West Cape and the Northern Cape. It is a comparatively new industry, and nobody will blame the Department for conditions there not being just as satisfactory as they are e.g. on the gold mines. On the contrary, I have referred to certain improvements which were made there. Among other things, in underground works we to-day at least have air purification and there are regular clinical and radiographic examinations of the workers, both when they are employed for the first time and periodically thereafter. Conditions of service have also been generally improved. Housing and sanitation in general are still very unsatisfactory but even in that respect steps are being taken to improve the position. But what upsets and disturbs me most of all is the fact that asbestosis and its kindred disease mesitalium, as the doctors call it, but which we shall now call pleural cancer, occurs fairly widely among people outside the industry, people who reside in the vicinity of mines and pulverizers and mills, and who never have direct contact with the industry as such. Last year I quoted certain figures here; I do not want to repeat them, but I should like to point out that I have already shown by those statistics that pleural cancer occurs on a fairly widespread scale. The figure for Prieska and Koegas along the Orange River alone for the past five years was 13, of whom only 4 ever were in direct contact with asbestos. This phenomenon that a form of pneumoconiosis can also be contracted by people living in the vicinity of a mine is something new in mining in South Africa. I do not know of such cases in connection with the gold mines or other mines, and for that reason I should like to know from the Minister whether any research has been conducted in connection with this matter, and if so, what steps are being taken for the safety of people in the vicinity of the mines. Last year I suggested certain things. We asked the hon. the Minister whether effect could not be given to those suggestions. The one is the disposal of asbestos waste. At most of the mines there are great dumps exposed to the atmosphere and which of course are blown about by the wind. We know for instance that asbestos dust is so fine that it may remain in suspension in the atmosphere for a very long time, and in that way it is spread over a great area in the vicinity of those mines. Then I should like to know whether it is not possible to remove pulverizers and mills from the densely populated areas, among others Prieska and Koegas. Then I should also like to see somebody—I do not know whether it should be Mines or Health—make a proper inquiry into the degree to which people in the vicinity already suffering from asbestosis in the first instance, and then subsequently from the kindred pleural cancer. I asked whether it was not possible for a sub-bureau of the Pneumoconiosis Bureau or as it is called now, the Medical Bureau for Mineworkers, to be established at one of their places to make this inquiry, so that all the people in the area may be radiographically examined, and furthermore that the Department of Mines should establish a central hospital at some place for the treatment of these people, and particularly also to examine the possibility of diagnosing the disease at an early stage, and whether there is any treatment at all for it. The position is that as regards the workers themselves they have to accept the risk they run in any industry, and all they can ask from the Department of Mines is that the Department shall take the necessary steps to protect them against infection and if they contract the disease, and possibly die from it subsequently, that there should be proper provision for them or their dependants in the form of compensation. But people outside the industry are not eligible for the compensation the workers may claim. I should like to point out further that it is in the interests of the industry itself too. Last year, in 1962, 220,000 tons were produced and we sold it for R22,000,000, mostly overseas. In other words, this industry is a great earner of foreign currency also, and for that reason it is in the interests of the industry also, that we should popularize it as much as we possibly can. I shall be pleased if the Minister in his reply will tell me whether anything has been done in this regard.

In the short time at my disposal I cannot reply fully to the hon. member’s questions and those of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), but I promise to furnish them with written replies. I may say briefly to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) that we are about to launch a great research programme in this field. The Department of Mines, the pneumoconiosis research unit, the C.S.I.R. and the asbestos producers have drawn up a big programme of research which will extend over quite a few years in respect of the problems of asbestosis and mesitalium. We are now considering that research programme and I hope that we shall shortly be able to begin on a large scale. On the other questions we shall send the hon. member written replies later on.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). It appears to me that the hon. member does not appreciate the position fully as yet. He said last night that I said last year that it is an agreed measure and that they subsequently ascertained that it was not true. In other words, I had told the House an untruth. Now I should like to repeat to the hon. member what I said last year, namely that it is an agreed measure. It is not proper to allege that I told an untruth here. I should like to tell the hon. member this—and let it be recorded—two parties were involved in this, namely the Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Trade Union. After much discussion with the Chamber of Mines, they informed the Department in writing that they accepted the legislation in its entirety. The basis of the financial part, as regards levies, is virtually the proposal of the Chamber of Mines. The Department had other suggestions, but those proposals which form the basis of the levy are the proposals of the Chamber of Mines which accepted this Act as a whole. The Chamber of Mines did, in fact, make one reservation on the medical basis of certification. I stated clearly in this House on one or two occasions that the Chambers of Mines had a reservation in that regard, and I undertook that after the Act had been in operation for a while, and after we had seen how it works, I would be prepared to appoint a commission of enquiry or to have the matter investigated in one way or another. That is what I said. I still adhere to that, and I hope the hon. member accepts what I said.

My Department negotiated with the mineworkers for months and months. The mineworkers eventually accepted the Act. They came to me here in Cape Town and made certain great demands. I said that those demands were not acceptable because it would involve tremendous financial implications. They then said they were prepared to accept the Act if we made certain small amendments. We made those amendments, and they were then prepared to accept the Act. Therefore I repeat that the Act was accepted as an agreed measure. Everybody was not 100 per cent satisfied, but it is an agreed measure, and it was introduced as such. I hope the hon. member will now accept that.

The hon. member also said “it is a half-baked measure”. A half-baked measure! Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg has referred to the fact that one of the hon. members praised the Department. Six years work went into this Act. For at least three years the Department studied this Act assiduously. They obtained information from overseas; they negotiated with groups and private people. They did so in an attempt to draft an Act which would be one of the most progressive Acts in the world. The hon. member is a very reasonable person; so I do not know how he can say that it is a half-baked measure.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he suggested that there is great dissatisfaction among the mineworkers about this Act. Mr. Chairman, there was a measure of dissatisfaction at the beginning of this year. A certain doctor came from overseas with certain medical theories. We caused those medical theories to be investigated by a panel of eminent experts and those theories were rejected. The dissatisfaction that existed is dying away rapidly. Today there is hardly any at all. The bureau is making enquiries and the people assure me that they are meeting only with gratitude and praise and satisfaction from all who come to the bureau. At the beginning there were some difficulties in the administration of the Act, and there will always be people who are dissatisfied. But I can assure the hon. member that not a single pneumoconiosis Act has operated so smoothly as this one is operating at the moment. The hon. member has no hope of gaining advantage for his party by attacking this Act.

Reference has been made here to motions of no confidence in the Government, to motions of no confidence in the Act, in the Department of Mines, etc. I merely wish to read what the mineworkers themselves say in an edition of 29 March—

Then I should like to quote to hon. members who tried to create lack of confidence among the mineworkers in the Government, what the mineworkers say in their official organ. They say this—

I think we shall now remain silent also, Mr. Chairman. I think we shall end this debate on a high note if we merely repeat these words: “The Mineworkers’ Union has never had a more sympathetic Government in power than the present one.”

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote 41.—“Defence”, R121,594,000,

I think the discussion on the Defence Vote this afternoon is probably about as important a matter as we have had for a long time. In the three months that have elapsed since the introduction of the Budget there have been such tremendous changes in affairs, each of which in some form or other affect Defence, that the whole of the Defence policy needs a very careful reappreciation even in comparison with the situation which existed on 20 March when the Budget was presented.

Under existing arrangements time is of necessity limited for a discussion of this type this afternoon. It certainly does not permit us in any way to deal with Defence as effectively and as comprehensively as it should be. We intend, therefore, to utilize the time available to us to discuss certain aspects of Defence and we shall deal with other Defence matters which are important later on in this Session on the appropriate occasion which will then occur.

Earlier this Session, partly in view of this sort of situation and partly in view of the tremendous importance of Defence to the country to-day, we placed certain proposals to the Government suggesting some improvements and changes in Parliamentary procedure as far as Defence matters were concerned. Changes which would not only provide more adequate time but which would also permit a much freer and more extensive discussion of Defence including the exchange of Defence information which could not normally be done in the course of an open debate of this nature. We suggested, inter alia, the issue of a Defence White Paper and the setting up of a Parliamentary Defence Committee. We gave certain examples of the principle we were thinking of to be adapted to our own needs. I should like the hon. the Minister, in his reply, to tell us whether it has been possible to do anything at all in that connection and, if so, how far he has got in the examination of our suggestion and whether the Government or the Minister has reached any decision aiming at the introduction of some such system. I would urge the Minister not to be put off by the magnitude of a similar system in some of the major countries. They naturally base theirs on the magnitude of their own defence requirements. Our aim is the application of a similar principle but on a very much smaller scale.

I want to discuss some of the implications, as they affect Defence, of the Government’s Bantu policy inside South Africa itself. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell us what the Government’s defence policy is in regard to the changed internal position of the Republic which is developing as a result of the Bantustan policy. It has been repeatedly stated that the Bantustan states which the Government intends to create will eventually develop into sovereign independent states. The first positive action in that direction has been taken since the Defence Budget was put before the House. The first step in that direction has been taken in the form of the Transkei Constitution Bill which was passed earlier this Session. It must be accepted that as a result of that Government policy, the speed at which these independent states will become fully independent will no longer be under the control of the Government itself but that that control will largely devolve on the Bantustans themselves. We have evidence of that already. No argument can be adduced to alter the fact that this new Transkeian territory will punch a dangerous hole right in one of the most important sections of our national defence perimeter of the Republic as a whole. I think we have to accept that that will be so. The danger will naturally increase as the independent state of the various Bantustan territories develops. It is quite clear that in view of that feature alone, leaving out all the other external pressures, there has to be a complete reappraisal of the Republic’s defence policy in regard, not only to those areas, but to the use of those areas as a base from which aggression, subversive activity or generally matters which can affect the security of the Republic, can be directed against us. It is an accepted fact that in order to be successful saboteurs have to have a base either within or in close fighting distance from the territory in which they are going to operate. Again, the evidence we have had up to now is that the potential for such a base exists in the Bantustan territory to be established. The country and the Minister have to face the unpleasant fact that the Republic’s security is being undermined by the pursuance of this particular policy. We must accept that the security value of the defence we have built up is being completely offset and nullified by this ideological colour legislation of which we have had a mass during this Session alone. I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically, with regard to these questions, what the Republic’s defence policy is in relation to the Bantustans they are creating? I am not referring to the day-to-day policy which flows rather from unforeseen happenings, but the national policy, the long-term policy, in the light of the ultimate full independence of these territories. Are we to have non-offensive alliance or non-aggression pacts with these states as they become more and more independent? Will there be any control over the type and quantity of armaments that their Governments can acquire or from whom they can acquire them? Will there be any control over the technical or other special assistance they can obtain from any external power or any barriers against any liaison they could build up with communistic states, which would be detrimental to the security of the Republic? Will South Africa train their defence forces as they develop, because develop they will. They will have to develop their own defence force. We have had that lesson right down through Africa so we cannot be blind to it ourselves. I do not want anyone to get up and tell me I am talking politics. I am talking about matters which are fundamental to the long-term security of this country. It is from that basis that I want to approach this matter. Will we in South Africa have anything to do with the training of the defence forces of those Bantustans? And, if so, from what source will the requisite instructors and the equipment be forthcoming? We are already experiencing difficulties in the expanded training system in our own defence force. What control will the Republic exercise over their coastal areas and the seaboard and their territorial waters which are now being extended to about 12 miles?

The hon. member is asking me so many questions that I cannot write them down.

One of the most important features of control affecting our own security is the control over their coastal areas, their seaboard and their territorial waters. We experienced that during the last unsettled period when the state of emergency was declared in the Transkei, when we had to concentrate our South African Navy vessels on patrolling that coast. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to reply to the questions of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) although I should like to say a word or two about them. In the first place I am glad he says he does not make this speech for political purposes, because I wish to appeal to the Opposition not to exploit for political purposes the problems in regard to Defence. It will be a tragic day if we do that. For that reason I am glad that the hon. member said he was not trying to make political capital by means of his speech.

I should like to say in the first place, Mr. Chairman, that the Transkei is not going to become an independent country within one year. It will take a number of years before it becomes an absolutely independent country, if they wish to be that.

How do you know that?

My common-sense tells me that. My common-sense tells me that the Transkei is not going to be a sovereign independent State in the full sense of the word very soon. But secondly I wish to say that I think the Transkei is going to be dependent on the Republic of South Africa for a very long time. I think it will be to the advantage of the Transkei and of the Republic that we should maintain the closest mutual co-operation. It will be to our advantage in regard to any problem regarding the defence of the Transkei. Now I should like to say this on the other hand: Every country in the world has certain neighbours. Every country in the world prepares itself for self-defence. Whatever you do, you have to have regard to your neighbours. South Africa’s neighbours are Moçambique, the Federation and Angola. We do not know what the future holds in store for those countries; we do not even know what their immediate future is. We could also be threatened by those countries. Now I should like to mention something else. We have on our borders Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland. All of them are aspiring to independence. I have never yet heard hon. members say that this may involve dangers to us. In other words, I am saying that in the same way as we to-day have as neighbours Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland, in the same way as we have as our neighbour Rhodesia which apparently is to become Black, and we do not know what the future holds in store for Angola and Moçambique—in the same way we shall have the Transkei as our neighbour. I think it is completely wrong to say that the Transkei constitutes a great danger to us. a danger we cannot possibly meet. That argument can only be used to scare the public of South Africa. I do not think hon. members will say that we should absorb all our neighbours because they constitute a danger to us. If a country regards its neighbours as a danger to it, then it means there is only one alternative open to it, and that is to absorb all its neighbours until it has absorbed the whole world. Any country in the world will always have neighbours. For that reason I think that we should not just assume that if we were to have another neighbour it must necessarily constitute a danger to us. That is the reply I should like to give hon. members opposite in all modesty.

In the time left to me, Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey to the Minister a few words of thanks for having maintained throughout that we in South Africa, in spite of the fact that in the Western countries things are happening which are not always pleasant to us, must side with the West and that in spite of everything he tells the West that we stand by them. I think that is the correct point of view. We are a Western country; we have a Western way of life and under all circumstances and in any danger we must stand by the West. I am deeply convinced that the Western nations will begin to appreciate to an increasing extent the strategic value of a stable Government and of a stable economy and of a stable country like South Africa. While all kinds of governments are emerging in Africa, governments upon which the West cannot fully rely, I think the West will eventually realize that at the southern tip of Africa there is a country, economically strong, which is of tremendous strategic value, very much greater strategic value in any future warfare than it had in the two last wars.

A war against whom?

A war between the East and the West or between Russia and the West. In such a war South Africa is going to be of much greater strategic value because we are much more industrialized than we were in the past. As conditions develop in South Africa the West will realize that this stable country can be of great strategic value to them. As we are a country which wants to protect our Western way of life, it is the correct attitude to adopt, namely that we will under all circumstances stand by the West. For that reason I am glad the Minister is adopting this attitude. I say not only the industrial potential of South Africa, but also the sea route around South Africa is going to be of much greater value than in the past in a future war in which America may be involved—particularly because America will be the main country concerned. I should like to mention only one fact, and that is that in Africa South Africa will be the furthermost point from the arena of the immediate war. A war between Russia and Europe and America must be decided in Europe and a war between China and the West must be decided in Asia. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman. South Africa is the furthermost point in Africa from the battle arena in Europe or in Asia, and it is going to be of the greatest importance to the West. I think the Minister is adopting the correct attitude by saying all day long that, in spite of all the things the Western nations are doing to us, and are saying (for instance, that they will not supply us with weapons (at least the Labour Party in England says this)), we will stand by the Western nations.

I am not going to follow on what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) has said—I hope he will forgive me—except to express the fervent hope that some of his rosy dreams will indeed come true. But I believe the time is past that South Africa can depend on these rosy dreams of assistance from other quarters, much as I hope that would eventuate. The countries who are most likely to threaten us are not Russia or China alone; there are territories to the north of us and I think they are the most likely ones we shall have to deal with at the moment. Here we are and we have to stand on our own feet. Have we not learnt a lesson from what has happened in Swaziland? The same sort of thing can happen in the territories that we are now making independent. There in Swaziland we learnt a double lesson. Great Britain had to depend upon the friendship of South Africa in order to get her troops and supplies through to Swaziland, and just as unrest has been stirred up there so it can be stirred up amongst our own people. You see, Mr. Profumo and his red-headed girl-friend have put a stop to all prospects of our getting further assistance from Great Britain because of the change of Government which now seems inevitable. Let us discount that for the moment and deal with realities.

There is one last question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Is the strategic planning and, the equipment of our Defence Force, which have been prepared with one eventuality in view, being revised and realigned to meet the important changes which have been brought about through the creation of these independent Bantustans? The whole position is so fraught with danger that we cannot afford to sit and wait for something to happen and then do our planning. The whole defence organization must take a long-term view of what they are planning for. It takes five or six years to get some of the essential equipment landed in this country. At the time the equipment is ordered the plan for which it is required has to be known and appreciated. But the factors bearing on that plan have changed to such an extent that we cannot wait. The time for a clarification on the Republic’s defence policy is now. The Government is responsible for the necessity of changing that policy. It is therefore necessary for them to visualize what dangers they are planning against if certain eventualities occur. As I said just now we have enough evidence of what is likely to occur. You see, Mr. Chairman, this is no longer a matter of territorial defence. This is a matter, which viewed cold-bloodedly, can ultimately mean the survival or the destruction of this Republic of ours. You cannot gamble with that. That is why we should like to learn from the Minister, as far as he is able to give it, what the Government’s policy is in meeting this new situation as it might well arise. We are seeing it approaching us and you cannot leave such things to chance. You cannot let them wait and improvise emergency action when the first signs of trouble start to appear; it is too late then. It has got to be dealt with now in the planning stage. The crisis is on the way to us now, and we want to know the answer now. We are supporting the Government, we have consistently supported the Government throughout the years in regard to its defence commitments. We have backed them, we have done everything to try and help them to make a success of it. But we also have a duty to do to the Republic and we now demand that these defence preparations must be realistic. They have got to face what can happen in the light of the changes that the Government themselves are bringing about inside the borders of our country. It is not only the outside danger, it is the inside one that we have also got to deal with. When you have security inside your country, you can face the enemy outside in a much happier frame of mind. And we on this side are not satisfied, we have said so repeatedly, that the situation internally is so fully appreciated by the Government as for them to realize what potential for danger to this country may well develop from this Bantustan creation of their own.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not react immediately to what he said, but there is a good deal in what he said which I wholeheartedly agree, and I hope to return to that. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister, who in the circumstances of the present time must have one of the most difficult Departments in South Africa to administer. As regards the people of South Africa it is certainly regarded also as one of the most important because our internal security; the whole existence of our country is affected by his portfolio. That is why we must support him and that is why I endorse what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has said, that we should forget entirely about trying to make political capital out of a debate of this nature. It does not behove us in South Africa to-day at all.

Now there are a few matters I should like to have a reply to if possible. But if the Minister cannot reply to me, for strategical reasons, I shall not take it amiss of him. The first point I should like to make is this, that there are several of our Commandos which are struggling to get their numbers up to the requisite strength. In our towns and everywhere there are young men who are just loitering around and who know nothing about defence matters at all, who apparently have never handled a gun; they cannot shoot and they do not belong to a Commando; and they do not realize what is going on in the country and what is happening around us, and they have no idea of the threats facing South Africa. The hon. the Minister told us during a recent debate that he hoped to have 140,000 men in uniform next year. We appreciate it that he has progressed so far already. I wish also to express my appreciation for the statements made by the hon. the Minister in connection with our aviation and air defences, and for what I know has already been achieved in this sphere, as well as the serious attempts to protect and defend our shores properly in time of trouble. But in this regard I associate myself with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). If possible we should like to know to what extent we are ready, should there be any trouble. Because it would be foolish of this House not to realize and appreciate that if trouble should come, the African States will exploit it to the very best of their ability, and that they will exploit the internal circumstances with our great non-White population, where they will most certainly try to organize a fifth column, and where we shall then most likely have to fight on two fronts. These are important things we are considering here, and therefore I do not expect the hon. the Minister to come and tell me what has been done already, but if we could only have the assurance that the planning has already been set afoot to safeguard South Africa if these things were to happen, and that every man, and if need be every woman too, is prepared and that they will have the weapons to fight with, it will largely set our minds at rest. Let me say at once that I do not regard myself as too old to go and fight if my country should be in danger. But I cannot go into battle with an old shotgun and an old Webley revolver. Has our country the supplies? Do we have the arms, do we have the ammunition, the weapons? If we could have some information in that regard, so that we know that plans have been completed as to what action will be taken and what may be expected, then I think that I at least will sleep much more peacefully. But the fact is that, like other persons, I am worried.

I can now wish the hon. member sweet dreams, and I hope the hon. member will be able to sleep more peacefully.

Thank you very much. If I know the weapons are there, and if I am sure the people will know how to use these arms, I shall be much more content. But at the moment that is not the case yet. I am perturbed about those young people who are lying around in our cities, bank clerks and other clerks who know nothing about weapons. When we think of the threats being made against us in South Africa at present, we must realize that something may happen shortly, or it may be in the distant future, or it may be never, but we must be prepared for it. There is another matter which I regard as of the utmost importance to South Africa. When we look at States to the North of us, we find that Egypt has succeeded, and Israel has succeeded, in attracting to their countries some of the greatest scientists in respect of defence matters; virtually to buy them. I am thinking of Messerschmidt of Germany, who is manufacturing arms for Egypt at present; we know that to-day they have the potential arms to wipe out their arch-enemy Israel. On the other hand we know also that much German aid is being invoked by Western Germany for the defence and protection of Israel should the Arab states launch an attack. Now this is my question: I think it should also be possible for South Africa to buy scientific brains, scientific ability. If it is a matter of money, South Africa must find that money, and I do not think anybody will object to that. Why cannot we have an arms factory established in South Africa, if necessary with foreign assistance?

For what kind of arms?

The great armaments manufactured in Europe to-day. I am thinking of rockets etc. which Egypt has at its disposal thanks to the technical assistance of Messerschmidt. As I see it, we do not have at our disposal the requisite aircraft which could also be manufactured in our country, although our nation will have to make sacrifices to do so. We shall have to pay for it, but nevertheless I think it will be possible to buy that “knowhow” in overseas countries. In other words, we shall have to buy the man to come and settle here, and if it is necessary for South Africa’s safety and continued existence, I just cannot see how we can back out of it. I believe if the hon. the Minister were to come to this House with such a case, we will be only too ready to give him the green light. I sincerely urge that that idea should take root with the hon. the Minister and with his advisers. I should like to say a word or two about what the hon. the Minister recently said in regard to our coastal defences; when he said that if it was necessary for South Africa to acquire submarines, South Africa would acquire them. That is a most important statement. I do not know where we shall be able to get them, and I personally am concerned about that. If the hon. the Minister could reassure us, then I will, as he has said, sleep more soundly, but if our men are called up, even if it is for only three weeks in a year, and I do not think we should have regard to the age factor, then we must make provision for it. Those who can walk should learn to handle weapons. We must not exempt a man of 50 or 60. Much older men have fought in wars in this country in former years. If a man can walk he must learn to handle a gun. I think it is very necessary for our internal defence. because if our troops have to guard our borders or have to guard our coast line, who will then look after our internal defence? That is where the older men could play their role. Hence this plea of mine. Having regard to the threats against us, having regard to what is appearing in the newspapers of the world every day, and having regard to the pleas of the Africa States at U.N.O., that no further weapons of any kind should be supplied to South Africa. I do not think there can be any doubt at all that we must realize that we have been forced into a corner and that we shall be called upon ourselves to ward off those dangers in this country. [Time limit.]

I hope that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) will not take it amiss if I do not follow up what he said. I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with his statement—that it is a great pity that there are so many of our young people, and also older people, who do not make use of the opportunity which they have to join the Commandos and to receive training in the use of our latest small-arms and so forth. This is to the detriment of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister can do anything to improve this position, I am sure he will do so.

In these difficult times in which we are living in South Africa it is only natural of course that we should all be very interested indeed in the Defence policy of the Government. As the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has said, we on this side of the House have always tried to help where we can to make our Defence Force as strong as possible, and we shall continue to do so.

I personally am rather concerned at the threats which are being made against us daily by the Africa States. Not that I think they can do us any harm at the moment, but one can almost say that those threats have passed the cold war stage. We are not engaged in a shooting war as yet but it has passed the cold war stage. The Africa States decided a few weeks ago at Addis Ababa to set up a fund in order to finance an offensive against South Africa. The first shots in that offensive have not yet been fired but we have already passed the cold war stage. The fact that worries one more is that these people are receiving material as well as moral support from nations who ought to support us, who ought to stand with us. It is in this fact that I see the great danger that threatens us to-day. It is a great pity that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not succeeded in getting some of these people on our side. But I do not want to elaborate in this regard. The fact that he has failed, however, makes the responsibility and the task of the hon. the Minister of Defence so much greater. A far greater responsibility rests upon his shoulders to-day because we find that South Africa virtually stands alone, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to do something to win back the goodwill of some of those people who have always stood by us faithfully—to get them on our side once again.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has also done his best.

I accept that he has done his best, but unfortunately, he has failed. I do not think there can be any doubt that our Defence Force is organized to-day and that we are able to maintain internal security under difficult circumstances. I go so far as to say that I am quite sure that our Defence Force will be able to stand up to our enemies in Africa and keep them out of South Africa. But unfortunately our position is deteriorating. A fact which gives us great cause for concern and which has also been mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) is that the people who have always stood by us and who would want to stand by us are now openly saying that they will no longer supply us with arms. I am thinking of Mr. Wilson and his statements and of the reports that we have seen in the Press from America to the effect that America is also beginning to doubt whether she should sell aircraft to us. We also read in the Press that countries like Italy are refusing to sell pistols and revolvers to us. This is a very serious state of affairs because although we are manufacturing many of our small-arms, ammunition and shells here in South Africa, there are large numbers of weapons of war that we need and that we cannot manufacture ourselves. I think, for example, of the large aircraft which have been mentioned in this House, aircraft like the “Buccanneer”. South Africa is not able to manufacture these aircraft at this stage nor will she be able to do so for the next few years. We are not even able to manufacture training aircraft, which are comparatively easy to manufacture. It is no small matter to establish a factory for the manufacture of training aircraft. We are still dependent upon foreign factories for these items and I hope that the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence will be able to make an arrangement with those who are able to supply us with this material so that we can be sure that these items will be delivered when they are needed.

It is often said that we will stand by the West and that we will be of great strategic importance to the West. That is quite true, but we must remember that South Africa can only be of strategic importance to the West as long as South Africa stands, as long as our cities, our harbours, our industries and our communications function normally. If these are disrupted, we will no longer be of any strategic importance to anyone. Because of the position in which it finds itself to-day, the Congo is of no strategic importance to any country because chaos reigns there. We must remember that in wartime our industries and communications have to carry a burden which is far greater than they have to carry in peacetime, and if they are destroyed or come to a standstill we will lose our strategic importance. The point that I want to make is that I feel that the hon. the Minister of Defence should try somehow to make countries of the West understand that South Africa will stand by them but that if South Africa falls into the hands of a Black Government, she will lose her strategic importance to the West because then everything will be destroyed.

I have already mentioned that we are able to manufacture the light weapons that we need for our internal security and to ward off attacks that may come from the African States, but there are other obligations which I think should be placed on record. I have stated previously in this House—and I think this is vitally necessary—that it is not sufficient for our Government to say that we will stand by the West. We must have a proper understanding. It must be understood that while our support of the West imposes certain obligations upon is, it also imposes certain obligations upon our allies to assist us. They will then be compelled to supply us with the arms that we will need to help them when the time comes. Our difficulties will then disappear to a large extent. I want to suggest that it may be possible for us to take the lead in regard to a South Atlantic Treaty Organization. Cannot we arrange a treaty of this nature? We will then at least have the assurance that as far as our struggle against Communism is concerned, as far as the East is concerned, we will have the support and assistance of those of our Western allies to whom we can look for help.

I want to some back to the point raised by the hon. member for Simonstown and that is that we would like to be given more information. We do not want to use this information to the detriment of the Government or the Defence Force, but we are voting colossal sums for defence to-day and although we have the fullest confidence in the Minister and his staff that they will use that money to the best advantage I do think that a committee should be brought into being—as suggested by the hon. member for Simonstown—which will at least be fully acquainted with the policy of the Government, with the difficulties that the Government has to contend with and with the obligations that we have to meet. [Time limit.]

I am pleased that the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) who opened this debate showed great circumspection in what he said. He confined himself to asking questions. But there is one question that I cannot understand because the Government has repeatedly announced—and it has been accepted by everyone—that the Government is responsible for the defence of the Republic of South Africa. We have the three Services making up our armed forces, three directions in which we can develop as far as the defence of our country is concerned. We have a Navy (the sea arm), we have our Air Force (the air arm), we have our Permanent Force (the land arm). Hon. members have asked whether we are prepared for possible eventualities. The hon. the Minister has told us time and time again that South Africa is as prepared to-day as never before. He has also told us what we can put into the field if we are called upon to do so. We are now asked whether the Government is prepared, and certain possible dangers have been suggested to us. Do hon. members opposite really imagine that the Government has not considered those possibilities? Last year the Government asked for R120,000,000 for the defence of the country and this year it is asking for R157,000,000 for the same purpose. Why do hon. members think the Government asks for those amounts of money? Is it not to prepare ourselves? I do not want to mention figures here and I would be the last person to ask that the world should be told just how prepared we are. I do not want the outside world or our possible enemies to be warned what to expect. The Government has repeatedly stated through the medium of the hon. the Minister that our country is prepared for eventualities. Do hon. members not believe the Government? Do they not accept the word of the hon. the Minister? Sir, it is the duty of the Opposition not only to obtain information if they are afraid that the Government is not prepared, but it is also their duty to make suggestions. What do they want to know? Is there anything in connection with our Navy and our Air Force that they want to know and in regard to which they think improvements can be effected? That may perhaps be so but on the other hand they must also consider the financial aspect; they must ask the Government whether the funds are available. Or else they must say to the Government: “We are not satisfied to spend only R157,000,000 a year on defence; we want to suggest that the Government should consider doubling that amount.” Sir, if the Government does double this amount it will be able to strengthen our Navy, our Air Force and our Permanent Force to a much greater extent. But it is impossible to do so if the funds are not available. I want to ask whether a country like ours can really afford to spend more money on defence. Year after year, when the hon. the Minister has asked for increased amounts, the Government has been prepared to make those amounts available. Not a single member has refused to vote those amounts. But we find that suspicion is sown, not only here in this House, but in the outside world and the hon. the Minister is asked whether he is prepared in the event of an attack. The hon. the Minister has stated repeatedly that our country is more prepared to-day than ever before. I want to ask hon. members whether they can mention any period in our South African history in which there has been such intensive training of our armed forces as there is at the present time? This has never happened before. The hon. the Minister has told us how many men can be put under arms. Do hon. members want him to increase the number? We are now told that there are many citizens who have not yet joined the Commandos. But the hon. the Minister, with the information at his disposal, has fixed a quota which he considers necessary for the purpose of our internal defence. If he has the men available, he will have to obtain more money if he wants to train more men in the Commandos. The Commandos are no longer what they were in the old days. The Commandos are also being trained to-day. Every officer is trained. The Commandos have a greater striking power to-day than ever before in the history of the Republic of South Africa. What do hon. members want? Cannot they put forward suggestions? Do they want our naval forces to be doubled?

Yes.

Well. I can understand it but in that case they must say that the public should be taxed accordingly. Otherwise it cannot be done. They may perhaps be able to set up new branches, but do hon. members imagine that the Government and the hon. the Minister have not yet given their attention to this matter? Just think of what has been done during the period in which this Minister has been Minister of Defence. Just think of the number of men who have been trained. Fourteen thousand young men are being trained this year. Mention a period in our history when all this has been done in peacetime. One may perhaps be able to step it up during war-time, but I want hon. members opposite to tell me when it has ever happened in peacetime that 14,000 young men have received intensive training over a period of nine months in the use of the most modem weapons available to us? It is easy for hon. members opposite to talk, of course, when they do not have to bear the responsibility. That is very easy. But let them suggest something practicable that is not being done at the moment. What is more, the hon. the Minister stated recently that he was looking forward to the day when it would be possible to train every able-bodied man in South Africa. This is not something that can be done in a day or in a month. But the question is: Do hon. members opposite want the hon. the Minister to take those steps? If he does take them I am convinced that the Opposition will be the first to say that he is paralysing our industries because he is depriving them of all their manpower. [Time limit.]

Before I resumed my seat just now, I was saying that we were spending large sums of money on defence but that this in itself was not a guarantee that the money was being spent wisely. I do not say for one moment, as I was accused of doing by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker), that that is the case here. My point is that we want more information in this connection. There was a time in our history—and not so long ago either—when we also spent large sums of money on defence. I am thinking here of the time when the United Party was in power and when Mr. Pirow was Minister of Defence. Large sums of money were also spent then, but what was our position when war broke out?

The money spent on defence at that time was nothing in comparison with what is being spent to-day.

The circumstances were the same. I say that it would be to the advantage of the hon. the Minister, the Department and the country if we had some sort of committee in this House which could give its attention to the question of supplying information relating to defence matters.

Mr. Chairman, all of us are disturbed at what is happening to the north of us. At this stage we are not afraid that those people will be able to equip an expeditionary force to come and attack us. There are many reasons for that but the most important is that they are far removed from us and it will therefore be difficult for them to attack us. Apart from that we still have buffer states between them and ourselves at the moment, buffer states like Angola, Southern Rhodesia and Mocambique. I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister which he may perhaps not be able to answer across the floor of this House. In any case it is a question which the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet will have to consider seriously. My question is this: What are we doing to assist these buffer states to maintain their position? I am thinking here of Mocambique; I am thinking of Southern Rhodesia and of Angola. Are we going to allow our enemies to walk into those countries? Once they are there, they will be virtually on our doorstep. If that does happen our position will be so much worse. I do think that this is a matter to which the Cabinet should certainly give its attention and in respect of which it will have to find a solution. The States in Africa to the north of us are saying openly to-day that they will assist one another to attack South Africa. They are saying openly that they have established a fund for this purpose at Addis Ababa. They make no secret of it.

The question is whether our Government should not adopt a positive attitude in regard to our friends here in Africa, those just to the north of us. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already said that we are going to stand by these people. I have no fault to find with that statement. On the contrary, I think it is the right thing to do because it will be in our own interests. If our enemies reach our borders we will experience precisely what was experienced in Algeria; we will then have precisely what we had in Korea when the communists and the volunteers took positions across the Yalu River and caused tremendous damage to the south of the river without our aircraft even being able to go across to help. We will have the same position here once our enemies are just beyond our borders. They will be able to carry on guerrilla warfare across our border. If we try to attack them, they will simply withdraw across the border. That is why it is so important to us that these buffer states should not be overrun. We must prevent that.

There is another aspect of the matter. We already know of the difficulties that exist in the Protectorates. As we all know, the Protectorates are still under British rule. We must expect the position to become even worse once the Protectorates are given their independence.

Then everyone there will die of hunger.

Since that will be the position as far as the Protectorates are concerned, there is all the more reason why we should safeguard our northern frontiers.

In conclusion I want to associate myself with the question that was put to the Government by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) who asked what the Government had in mind for the defence of the Republic when the so-called Bantustans received their independence. I know that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) said that this would not happen within the next two or three years. But the defence aspect of this matter requires a great deal of advance planning. Plans must be made now so that when that day comes we will be prepared.

I feel that I can agree with every word that the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said at the start of his speech except for his statement that the hon. the Minister should give more information to the United Party and the country. From speeches made by hon. members opposite we have been able to deduce that they too are concerned about the defence of our country, and if they approach the hon. the Minister with the idea of obtaining more information, I am sure he will not refuse to give it to them. But I want to point out that information that has thus far been withheld has been withheld for only one reason and that is with a view to the safety of South Africa. There is no other reason why information should be withheld. There are no other secret reasons why this should be done. All the information that can be supplied, bearing in mind the interests of the Republic, is supplied. Where information is withheld, it is withheld with a view to the safety of the State.

I want to come now to the speech made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I think I can say that we are all pleased that we have once again had the assurance from that hon. member that the United Party supports the defence policy of the Government. It was evident that the hon. member for Simonstown felt rather perturbed. When the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van der Walt) said that South Africa might be of a strategic importance in a war between East and West or in a war against communist countries, the hon. member for Simonstown immediately stated that there was no threat from that quarter. He said that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) was not being realistic in his approach to the matter. He said that the real threat to us was from North Africa. I am not the type of person who wants to start an argument at about 6 o’clock on a Friday afternoon, and so I shall not do so, but I just want to say that we are very pleased that the United Party has also come to that conclusion. I cannot help thinking back two years ago when we were rediculed because we said that we should spend more on defence for that very reason. It was said then that the money that we were spending on defence was being spent with a view to internal security and that there was no threat from the Africa states.

However, we are making progress because the United Party has also realized now that we do face a danger from that quarter. If they want to co-operate on that basis, we will welcome it. But this co-operation holds other dangers. Certain hon. members opposite appealed to the hon. the Minister this afternoon to try to convince the Western nations that it was essential that a White Government should remain in power here in South Africa. Those were the words used by the hon. member for North East Rand. That is correct, and we welcome that statement. But at the same time I want to ask whether in attacking our policy they are not creating the impression in the minds of the Africa States, amongst others, that there is a possibility of overthrowing this White Government? Do we not run the risk as a result of what they say, namely, that it is due to the policy of this Government that we find ourselves in danger, that these people may conclude that if a change of Government can be brought about here it will be possible to oust the White Government in South Africa?

The Nationalist Party is not the only party that can form a White Government.

When they say that, we must remember that they have an alternative policy, a policy which carries no assurance that a White Government will remain in office here. The hon. member for Simonstown asked, and the hon. member for North East Rand repeated the question, what the effect would be on our defence when the Transkei eventually received its independence. This question has been replied to repeatedly. Even though the Transkei will be given self-government the responsibility for its defence will still rest with this Government.

That is not what the hon. the Minister said.

The hon. member now contends that that is not what the hon. the Minister said. The fact is that this Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister have said so repeatedly. They have stated repeatedly that defence matters will remain in our hands until such time as the Transkei shows that it is able to exercise sovereign independence. Even then it would be stupid on our part to give them control of defence matters without ensuring that we have their friendship. When one listens to hon. members opposite one can only conclude that we face dangers from the African States and that they are so dangerous that we must ensure that when they reach our northern frontier we are there to meet them. At the same time, the hon. member said that by that time the Transkei would have been able to conclude agreements with hostile African States and would be able to serve as a springboard for attacks on South Africa.

When did I say that?

The hon. member for Simonstown asked this question repeatedly. What about the defence of our coastline; what about agreements that the Transkei can conclude with other African States? The hon. member for North East Rand need not look so innocent. He asked the same question in the same vein.

You cannot reconcile the two statements in that way!

I said at the start that I wanted to support certain statements made by the hon. member. He spoke about countries which ought to stand with us but which are threatening us at the moment. I take it that the hon. member was not surprised when he learnt of the decision taken at Addis Ababa, but I am sure that he was as surprised as I was when he heard the comments of Mr. Adlai Stevenson. I take it that the hon. member was equally surprised at the remarks of Harold Wilson when he explained what the attitude of the Labour Party would be towards South Africa if that Party came into power. I agree with the hon. member for North East Rand that we should not do anything to drive these people further away from us. But at the same time I want to say that if these people demand that we should give up a policy that we cannot give up, we will have to do without their assistance and carry on alone. For this we need a united front in the Republic and a united front particularly in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up one point which was raised by the hon. member for North East Rand and that is the point relating to the acquisition of equipment for our forces. I want to deal with this aspect from another angle. I should like to question the hon. the Minister in regard to the general policy which he follows in connection with the development of our forces. It is not sufficient to say that we are training a citizen by putting a rifle into his hands, training him how to use it and then saying that we have a trained force. The training of our forces must be directed at a specific purpose. This must surely be based on the appreciation of the situation by the Minister’s General Staff. Let me say in more specific terms what I am thinking of. When the Special Defence Equipment Account was established it had as a basis a specific direction of training based in turn on certain obligations which we had accepted in respect of playing our part along with the West. In other words, that Account was established for the purpose of acquiring armour for the setting up of an armoured division for use by the West in any place outside South Africa. At that time we had commitments in regard to the Middle East and we were told that this equipment was being acquired to develop an armoured division for use beyond the borders of the Republic.

I want to emphasize this, namely that where we acquire arms, these arms must be for forces who are being trained in a particular direction and for a particular purpose. Now, there can only be two objects in connection with the training of our forces. Firstly, there is the internal aspect, i.e. the object of defending our country against an aggressor from within Africa. We have heard talk of aggression on the part of the African States against our country. This then is the one object for which our forces can be trained. But there is also another object. The Minister told us last session that he believed it was essential for the West to make a joint effort to make every individual State as strong as possible. That implies that we would be prepared to use our forces in support of the West in the event of any international war which may break out, say between East and West. My argument boils down to this that arms are being acquired to enable us to train our forces with one of these two objects in view.

I raise this because we have been told diplomatically by very important States at international gatherings that they are no longer going to supply South Africa with arms. Here I have one country in particular in mind and that is the United States. As a matter of fact, the United States has given an undertaking in this regard on an international forum by Mr. Plimpton, their Ambassador to the United Nations. This is important to us because when the Special Defence Equipment Account was established we entered into an agreement with the Government of the United States in that we became a party to the Mutual Defence Assistance Act of the Government of the United States. In confirmation we exchanged notes with that Government. At any rate, we accepted certain obligations in regard to the object for which those arms will be used, i.e. the object of preserving world peace. At this point I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we are still acquiring equipment from the Government of the United States under that Mutual Defence Assistance Act. I have the relevant agreement here, clause five of which reads as follows—

It is pertinent therefore that we should ask particularly in the light of the public statements which have been made before the United Nations and which have appeared world wide in the Press. What the position now is in this regard as it is relevant to the development of our forces. This agreement certainly places obligations on the Government of the Republic and certainly also on the Government of the United States.

The Minister has stated that we are developing our forces in order to play our part with the Western nations for the preservation of peace. Consequently, I take it that this is one of the objects for which we are developing a larger force.

You are quite correct.

Now, if that is so, where then does the emphasis fall in regard to the development of our forces and the acquisition of arms and equipment? If the States of Africa attempt any military action in whatever way against South Africa they will, in terms of this agreement to which some of them are also party, become aggressor states and as such can be charged before the Security Council. As I have said, some of these states are also party to this agreement which states quite clearly if one of the signatories becomes an aggressor state it can lose all the advantages under that agreement, including the right to acquire military equipment.

So we are faced with the question: What is the policy of the Government in regard to the building up of our defence forces? Is the object merely to build up a defensive force from the point of view of defending ourselves against aggression or are we building up our forces in order to play our part with the rest of the Western world for the preservation of peace?

I have always said we are building up a balance.

South Africa is the only Western country which is not associated with any country, except under the Simonstown agreement with Britain, in a pact such as NATO, SEATO and others. We are the only nation which is not associated with the Western nations in an overall pattern of defence strategy. The only pact we have is to defend the southern seas with the United Kingdom. This, however, is in terms of a private agreement between ourselves and the United Kingdom only. Apart from that we play no part with any group of Western nations for the preservation of peace in the world.

It is clear that we must have some indication from the hon. the Minister. The Minister must come out into the open and tell us whether we are developing our defence forces merely on the fear of aggression from within Africa, in other words, purely defensive, or are we developing our forces for participating with the Western nations if they are so required. I hope the Minister will clarify these issues.

I now want to come to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Kimberley (North). I am glad that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) disagreed with that hon. member. Let us hope that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) has convinced the hon the Minister of what we from this side have tried for a long time to convince him in respect of the training of the Commandos. If that is so, then we have complete unanimity on both sides of the House and, consequently, the Minister need no longer be afraid to go ahead with an active programme for the training of the Commandos into an effective force.

But he is doing it.

The hon. member says the Minister is doing it. [Time limit.]

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.