Mr. Chairman, since a number of important decisions have been taken which may have a constructive effect on this debate, I should like to take this opportunity of bringing these decisions to the attention of hon. members right at the outset of the discussion.

In the first place, certain decisions have been taken about coal exports. The Government has decided to increase the present level of coal exports to 80 million tons a year for 30 years, to be constituted as follows—

1. (a) The already approved maximum level of 44 million tons a year for 30 years, i.e. 1 320 million tons in all.
2. (b) An additional 32 million tons a year for 30 years, i.e. 960 million tons in all. That is what has now been decided on.
3. (c) A further 4 million tons a year, which has already been authorized in the past, for shorter periods. It is envisaged that these 4 million tons will also be placed on a firmer basis.

In all, these three components amount to 2 400 million tons of coal over 30 years.

Since this decision has far-reaching implications, I should like to motivate this decision briefly and to put it in perspective.

Firstly: Increased exports will promote optimum utilization, intensified prospecting and improved mining methods, which are all factors that are of vital importance to South Africa. This has been clearly proved by the results of the previous decision to export 44 million tons a year for 30 years through Richards Bay. Optimum utilization became the watchword; prospecting got a tremendous boost and better mining methods are already being applied over a wide front.

Now hon. members may ask why the exportation of coal has had such a stimulating effect. The answer lies in the price. The prices of exported coal are two to three times higher, on average, than those of coal marketed inside the country.

Perhaps the advantage of increased exports for South Africa’s domestic needs is best illustrated by the development of multiproduct coal mines. These mines produce simultaneously for domestic consumption and for export, and succeed in achieving optimum recovery and utilization of all grades of coal for which there is a market at present.

Multi-product mines, which will develop to a much larger extent in the future as a result of the higher ceiling of 80 million tons which I have just announced, have already given rise to the utilization of more expensive and sophisticated mining methods, open-cast as well as underground. This in turn has been directly responsible for a dramatic increase in exploitable reserves.

Secondly: Increasing exports to 80 million tons is justified in the light of proven coal reserves. In 1975, the in situ coal reserves were estimated at 81 000 million tons and the recoverable reserves at 25 000 million tons.

As a result of new mining methods and intensive prospecting, to which I have already referred, South Africa finds itself in a much better position today, however.

Today, after an intensive investigation in co-operation with the coal industry, Geological Survey estimates the in situ reserves at 110 000 million tons and the recoverable reserves at 51 000 million tons.

In this connection I should like to point out the following—

1. (a) The exportation of 80 million tons a year over a period of 30 years constitutes 4,7% of the recoverable reserves of 51 000 million tons as estimated in 1980. This is 1% less than the 5,7% which the previously approved exports constituted of the 25 000 million tons of recoverable reserves accepted as proven in 1975. The increase to 80 million tons will therefore not disturb the already accepted ratio between exports and reserves.
2. (b) The assurance has furthermore been given that the latest estimate of reserves was conservative. Coal fields for which sufficient supporting information was not available were not included in the 1980 estimate. In fact, there is reason to expect that as a result of further prospecting, price movements and improved methods of exploitation, the reserves now accepted as proven will rise even further.

Thirdly: Increased exports will benefit energy costs inside South Africa.

Coal is South Africa’s principal source of energy. The increased revenue of producers from exports will help to maintain realistic domestic coal prices, which will in turn ensure that energy costs in our own country can be kept under control.

Fourthly: The increased coal exports hold great advantages for our mineral economy and will not only increase, but also stabilize, foreign exchange earnings.

South Africa’s mineral earnings are dominated by gold, and fluctuations in the gold price make our balance of payments extremely vulnerable. It is estimated that the increase in coal exports to the ceiling which has now been decided upon may mean that by 1990, South Africa will be earning approximately 50% of the value of our gold exports, at the record prices of 1980, from coal. The value of this for South Africa’s economic stability is obvious.

Fifthly: The exportation of 80 million tons of coal a year will establish South Africa as one of the three major suppliers to the coal-hungry world market. There is no doubt about the fact that the strategic importance of South Africa to the free world—which is already being increasingly recognized—will be further enhanced by the proposed coal exports. Because of the energy crisis, coal has become a strategic mineral, and supplying it generously to our trade partners at competitive prices will, it is hoped, contribute to a more realistic approach to the RSA.

†In the sixth instance: Increased coal exports will greatly contribute towards creation of job opportunities. It is estimated that some 50 000 new job opportunities will be created by the development of future coalmining and related activities arising from the increase that I have announced today. On top of this, one should add the very substantial contribution to creating jobs by the service and equipment industries, not to mention the stimulus to the economy as a whole with the development of additional rail and harbour loading facilities.

After having said all this, one may well ask whether we can afford to export this amount of coal considering our own future requirements. This question was the Government’s first concern. The Energy Branch in collaboration with the Minerals Bureau of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs therefore conducted a survey to determine anticipated future internal coal demand for the next 40 years. This was done in close collaboration with all the major coal consuming sectors.

It must be appreciated that to forecast the demand for any commodity for such a long period is indeed a formidable task, but I believe that the aforesaid demand forecast provides a firm foundation for future planning. Obviously, demand, like supply, is dynamic, and we will continue to update our forecast on a continuous basis.

In summary, I should like to say that it has been estimated that coal demand will increase at an average annual rate of some 5,8% per annum over the 40-year period under review. It is thus expected that the total domestic coal demand will increase from nearly 80 million tons per annum presently to some 250 million tons per annum by the year 2000.

Taking into account the fact that proven reserves are by no means static, as I have already explained, the Government is satisfied that its decision to increase coal exports is fully justified.

The Government has, as far as the new ceiling for coal exports is concerned, also decided that discards arising from the mining and preparation of coal for export or for local use, which are high in sulphur and other pollutants presently being discharged in our atmosphere and in surface and underground water systems, be exempted from quantitative export control in order to promote beneficiation and sale thereof abroad where a market exists for such products. I believe that this is a very important step towards lessening the environmental impact of coal mining activities. Along with this, the Government has also exempted low grades of coal which are not saleable on the domestic market—and of which large reserves exist in the ground and which, this is important, were not taken into account in the present reserves assessment—from quantitative export control.

Exports of these low grades and discards will therefore be allowed over and above the new ceiling of 80 million tons per year. It is important to note, however, that such exports will still be subject to departmental permit control and dependent upon appropriate truck, rail and harbour infrastructural facilities being available, over and above that provided for the approved coal exports as such.

In conclusion, I want to deal with the procedural aspects resulting from the Government’s decision.

A very large number of applications have been received to date. There is wide interest in the export of coal. No doubt, more applications will follow after this announcement. I want to announce that all applications must be lodged before 30 September 1981. After that date all applications will be considered according to a set of guidelines. An interdepartmental working group has been formed to advise the Cabinet in this regard.

*Naturally, the increase in exports cannot take place overnight. As in the case of the previous decision to export 44 million tons, the increased tonnage will also have to be phased in. This will be planned in close co-operation with the S.A. Railways and will take place gradually and in accordance with anticipated foreign market conditions. Railway capacity to the export harbour and loading facilities there will, as in the present coal exporting programme, have to be planned in predetermined phases to achieve specific export targets. We are also working on this at the moment and exporters will be involved in the planning.

Furthermore, it seems advisable to me not to allocate the full additional export tonnage which is now becoming available to producers simultaneously for export purposes. My feeling at this stage is that the existing export quota should at first be increased by only 20 million tons a year and that a second allocation should be made at a later occasion, taking into account the world demand for coal. In any event, I shall be guided by the working group to which I have referred before a final decision is taken about this.

Mr. Chairman, we are on the eve of a tremendous expansion of the country’s coal and energy industries; on the threshold of the introduction of a dynamic long-term energy/coal policy. I want to give the assurance that the policy will be aimed at reconciling optimum utilization of the resource with adequate commercial availability of coal, for energy as well as non-energy requirements and for domestic consumption as well as for export. While taking full account of the involvement of the private sector in coal production, it will provide for optimum exploitation of underground resources and for the encouragement of further benefication and utilization of lower-grade coal, midlings and cullings. Finally, but equally important, we shall attempt to ensure a realistic reconciliation of mining and power station activities with environmental considerations in implementing such an energy/coal policy. All these things together are not complicated by increased exports, but in fact facilitated.

In the second place, I should like to refer to liaison with the private sector in respect of energy affairs. Hon. members will recall that in his address at the opening of Parliament, the State President mentioned the fact that the Government was given attention to improved interaction between the public and the private sectors in the energy field. Against this background I wish to announce that the Energy Policy Committee is being enlarged by the addition of at least two expert members from outside the public sector in order to give the private sector a direct say in the planning and implementation of energy policy. At the same time, the number of representatives from the public sector is being reduced as a logical outflow of rationalization. Serious consideration has been given to requests from specific organizations in the private sector for representation on this committee, or something of that nature. However, specialized representation may cause the committee to become too unwieldy and creates the risk that its character may be transformed into that of a debating forum between specific interest groups, which the committee is not intended to be. In addition, liaison between the Minister of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the private sector will be stimulated in the following ways—

1. (a) According to need, a forum for discussion will be created for Government representatives and representatives of all interested parties in the private sector, where energy matters of common interest can be discussed and debated around a table on a mutual basis;
2. (b) As in the past, there will be continued liaison and consultation with specific persons and bodies;
3. (c) The furnishing of information concerning energy affairs will be streamlined.

I hope these steps will bring about greater satisfaction and I request the co-operation of the private sector in this connection.

†Thirdly, I want to refer to fuel conservation. Because of the real and valuable contribution which conservation makes to self-sufficiency, as well as to the more efficient utilization of our own resources, energy conservation forms an integral part of the Government’s energy strategy. In achieving our objective of energy conservation, a high premium is placed by the Government on voluntary co-operation by the man in the street, by industry and by commerce. The Government, however, realizes and accepts its co-responsibility to establish and promote energy conservation awareness in all sections of our economy.

As an initial step in an energy conservation campaign, a set of nine posters has been designed by my department. These posters reflect aspects of energy-saving in commerce and industry and in the transport and household sectors. It is expected that these will be found useful in factories, warehouses, offices and wherever individual organizations are bent on promoting the efficient utilization of energy. Schools, clubs and similar organizations may also find the posters useful to cultivate a sense of energy conservation. These posters will be supplied to educational departments, to the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, to the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa and to the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, to begin with. The posters, with appropriate explanations, will be displayed in room 1017 of the Hendrik Verwoerd Building for the next fortnight, and I invite hon. members to come and have a look at them.

Anyone interested in these posters is welcome to apply to the Energy Branch of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Private Bag X59, Pretoria, which will supply them free of charge.

*Finally, I should like to make a brief statement about the supply of electricity to agriculture and to smaller municipalities. [Interjections.]

Hon. members know that farmers, who are traditionally dependent on diesel power, are relying more and more on Escom power because it is obviously more economical for them. Unfortunately, the cost of Escom power, especially in the sparsely populated rural areas, has always been an inhibiting factor because of the relatively high extension fees which had to be levied to cover the line cost, which is at present between R5 000 and R7 000 per km.

As result of requests received from local authorities in remote areas and from the farming community, the Standing Committee on the Economic Position of the Farmer and Agricultural Financing in General—generally known as the Jacobs Committee—was instructed by the Minister of Finance to investigate—

1. (a) The possibility of making Escom power available to municipalities in remote areas, such as the North-Western Cape, with possible State assistance because of its high cost, as well as interim assistance to municipalities which still have diesel-fuelled power stations;
2. (b) the possibility of making electric power available to farmers in the border areas of the Transvaal; and
3. (c) the high cost of Escom power for agricultural purposes in general, especially because of the system of extension fees.

The Jacobs Committee has already concluded its investigation of all three of these aspects and hon. members are aware of the subsidy of 50% on the cost of diesel for diesel-generated power and the subsidy of 50% on Escom power supplied to municipalities at a bulk price of more than 7 cents per kW.h, on the portion above a threshold value of 7 cents per kW.h, with effect from 1 April 1980 and 1 April 1981, respectively, for a period of three years. This concession has already brought great relief to consumers in remote areas.

Since the initial approval of the subsidy aid, the hon. the Minister of Finance has decided, at the further recommendation of the Jacobs Committee, to render the following additional assistance to the municipalities concerned: Where the bulk cost of supplied Escom power exceeds a threshold value of 14 cents per kW.h, the portion above 14 cents is subsidized by 75%, also for a period of three years.

As regards the position in the border areas of the Transvaal, the Committee did not see its way clear to recommending any financial aid by the State because of the high costs. In spite of this, Escom is supplying power to the border areas at an ever-increasing rate. I believe that the announcement I shall make in this connection later will also contribute to more rapid development in these regions. Escom is already working on the construction of a rural network between Messina and Pontdrif and has also completed the planning of three further rural schemes in the vicinity of Ellisras. The conditions of supply have already been submitted to applicants, and the indications are that enough affirmative replies will be received to enable Escom to proceed with the construction of the networks.

Escom itself has also given attention to the high cost of Escom power for agricultural purposes in an attempt to create a better deal for the farming community. It has now produced proposals to the effect that extension fees be reduced by 40% and that a new tariff structure, known as tariff D, be introduced. In this tariff, a component is added to provide for the replacement, maintenance and administration costs which have been removed from the costs on which expansion fees have hitherto been based.

Furthermore, Escom proposes that the term of the extension fees be limited to 23 years, as against the indefinite period which is applicable at the moment. According to a further proposal by Escom, to which both the Jacobs Committee and the S.A. Agricultural Union consented, consumers may fully or partially redeem the balance of the extension fees by way of non-repayable capital deposits.

The position in respect of extension fees, if the Escom proposals are implemented, will be as follows: Farmers who have been paying extension fees for 23 years and longer will not be liable for any further payments, but will henceforth only be assessed at tariff D. Farmers who have been paying extension fees for less than 23 years will have their extension fees reduced by 40% and will henceforth be assessed at the new tariff D. They will also have the option of fully or partially redeeming the remaining 60% on a pro rata basis of the unexpired term of 23 years, on condition that such capital payments will not be repayable. Farmers who link up with Escom power from now on will pay tariff D from the start and will only be liable for 60% of the extension fees, with the option of also redeeming this amount or part of it by way of non-repayable capital payments. No capital payments in respect of extension fees can at any stage be claimed back from Escom or will at any stage be repayable by Escom.

The Jacobs Committee also recommended certain tax concessions in respect of the capital deposits for the purpose of redeeming the extension fees, as well as the granting of loans by the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board for the financing of the redemption arrangements and of networks constructed by agricultural co-operatives.

The proposal in connection with the deduction for income tax purposes of the total capital cost of an electrification plant to a farmer who uses it mainly or exclusively for production purposes has been referred by the hon. the Minister of Finance to the Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy for a recommendation, after which a final decision will be taken.

I must point out that proposals by Escom are only implemented with the approval of the Electricity Control Board, and this board has published the proposals for comment and possible objections, in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, before being able to consider it. If the Electricity Control Board approves the amendment of Escom’s licences, the new dispensation can come into effect from the beginning of 1982.

Finally, I should like to refer again to the cost of electricity to remote municipalities, in respect of which subsidies have been granted by the Government. Escom’s applications for the amendment of its licences include proposals for the amendment of the basis of calculation of the extension fees of bulk consumers, to the extent that these will be reduced by about 20%. So further relief, over and above the subsidies, may be granted to the local authorities in this way.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are obviously very happy with the announcements which the hon. the Minister has made. I want to comment on some of them now because many of the matters raised by the hon. the Minister actually form part of my prepared speech.

The announcement concerning coal exports will, without doubt, start what will probably become known as the coal-rush of the eighties. The extension to 80 million tons is a tremendous extension, particularly in the light of the fact that it is the export side of the coal industry which is the profitable side. Basically this subsidizes the production of coal for domestic use. I will react further to this in the course of my speech, but I think there is one point to which I think the hon. the Minister should come back and explain to us how it is going to work. The hon. the Minister has asked people who wish to apply for an export quota to apply by a certain date. There is, however, a problem, and this relates to the infra-structure supplied by the Railways at Richards Bay. There we have a coal terminal through which our coal is exported. This terminal was paid for by private enterprise, by a certain number of companies involved in the coal exporting business. We must therefore ask the hon. the Minister what arrangements they intend making for new companies which do not have a share in the investment costs of this particular installation at Richards Bay. What arrangements will be made for them to be able to export coal through that particular terminal? I think this is a very important point. The hon. the Minister has said that our proven reserves of coal are not static. This, of course, is perfectly true. However, what we must also bear in mind in relation to coal exports, is that while our proven reserves are not static, our actual reserves—those we have discovered and those we have not yet discovered—are static. This is a finite source of energy. I will react further to this later.

The second point the hon. the Minister brought up relates to the extension of the committee to bring in two members of the private sector. We heartily approve of this, and in the circumstances I do not think I have to react to it any further.

The fuel conservation posters is an interesting point, and I obviously welcome them. I do not, however, think that this is any more than a frivolous touching of the surface of what is actually needed in this country in terms of an energy policy. If we want the public to help us to conserve energy, we must do more than just put up posters. We have to put our money where our mouth is and we have to give them actual financial encouragement to conserve energy. This has been done in many other countries in the world and I shall be referring to this point again during the course of my speech.

The last point relates to Escom and the supply of electricity to municipalities in distant areas and, of course, also to farmers. I have personal experience of this, Sir. At the moment I have accepted a quote from Escom for the supply of electricity to my farm in regard to which I am going to have to pay a line charge in excess of R600 per month before I use one unit of electricity. These sums of money that are involved, Mr. Chairman, are large and we shall welcome anything the Government can do to improve this situation. The statement did not actually say that this system was going to be implemented; it simply said that it was a recommendation of Escom. We would urge the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to see that these recommendations are agreed to by the Electricity Control Board and the Government itself because I am absolutely certain that this could be one of the most important steps taken for the farming industry over a number of years. I think it is most important and I would urge the hon. the Minister to do everything he can in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, before returning to my prepared speech, I want to express my regret that at the outset I did not ask for the privilege of the half-hour because I was simply replying to what had already been said. May I at this stage, Sir, claim the privilege of the half-hour?

I think at this stage it can only be done with the consent of the Committee. Is there any objection to the hon. member’s claiming the privilege of the half-hour at this stage? As there is no objection the hon. member may proceed.

I thank the Committee, Sir, and I apologize for my oversight.

Mr. Chairman, in this, my first speech as official spokesman for the Opposition on mineral and energy affairs, I find that I have to some extent to skim the surface of what are in effect two enormous subjects simply because of a lack of debating time. I have decided, therefore, to deal briefly with minerals and more extensively with energy in the period of 20 minutes for which I intend speaking.

Before discussing these matters, I should at this stage like to pay tribute to my predecessor in the official Opposition who was our official spokesman on these matters, Mr. Derick de Villiers, formerly the hon. member for Constantia. Mr. Derick de Villiers was a very courteous and erudite man who will, I believe, be missed in these benches and in the House generally. He had a deep understanding of the subject matter of this Vote and he served his country extremely well for a number of years both in the diplomatic service and in this House. I think that the House will join me in wishing him a happy and contented retirement.

To come now to the question of minerals, Sir, their importance, of course, to South Africa and the world is undoubted. They have played a major role in the development of South Africa since Union. The year 1980 proved in rand terms to have been their best year ever and sales improved from R9,768 million to R14,994 million, a tremendous figure in any economy and a staggering rate of increase. This, I believe, is private enterprise at its best. There exists a long-term established method of negotiation between the mining industry and the Government and, by and large, this has proved satisfactory. Relationships between the mines and their staff are more the function of the Department of Manpower so I do not intend to say any more in that regard. However, it is worth noting that, on average, the mines employed 743 000 people in 1980 and that the earnings of these people amounted to R2,571 million. To more easily gauge this enormous figure this employment is almost four times that of the total employment in the metropolitan area of Port Elizabeth.

We believe therefore that our role should relate to the welfare of the country and its people and to be watchful that neither the Government nor the mining industries are allowed to carry out practices which will perhaps be of benefit now, but which will ultimately be detrimental to the South African people. The questions, I believe, that we must ask ourselves at all times are the following: Firstly we should ask ourselves whether we are raping our mineral resources. Secondly, we should ask the question of whether we are allowing the utilization and extraction of mineral resources to the detriment of natural resources. Thirdly, are we making sufficient progress in the benefication process, and fourthly, are the employees of the mines being sufficiently protected from occupational hazards?

As regards the first question I believe an area of concern is the matter that has just been referred to by the hon. the Minister. That is the exportation of coal, and I shall come back to that later. The second question brings to mind the drilling for coking coal in the Kruger National Park. This again is the difference between maximizing our energy resources or our coal resources and the need for nature conservation. The benefication process is pertinent when one sees the enormous quantities of iron ore leaving Sishen destined for export.

It has been suggested recently that there is going to be a worldwide shortage of iron ore. Are we correct—and we must continually ask ourselves this question—in continuing to export such vast quantities of this, together with other minerals, such as of course, chrome, manganese, vanadium, etc.? We are aware that Highveld Steel seems able to export steel profitably, and we as a country must do everything in our power, by way of incentives, to ensure that the resources of this country are exported after benefication. The ideal we must aim at is the ultimate total ending of the export of any raw material which can be processed locally. It is perhaps farfetched, but without a target the human race achieves nothing.

The fourth question, which relates to our occupational hazards, is pertinent when one realizes that in 1980 alone 833 people died and 21 000 were injured in mining accidents.

Before returning now to coal as a subject, I should like to talk briefly about our international strategy with regard to minerals. Without doubt our minerals are of strategic importance to the Western world, and those that matter in the Western world are well aware of this fact. I do not believe, however, that we need to keep pushing it down their throats. Also without doubt the communistic world would like to get hold of our mineral resources for their own purposes. Our strategy should be to help the Western world in their objectives and to deny the communist world control of the southern tip of Africa. We in the official Opposition will do what we can to bring about this result. We must, however, warn the Government that we have to help the Western world by making it possible for them to support us. The policies we pursue make it difficult for any government to support us and be re-elected in their own country.

Internally these policies create an underprivileged minority which does become a fertile ground for communist and Marxist infiltration.

To get onto the subject of coal now, I should like to point out that this is at the moment our major—in fact virtually our sole—source of energy within South Africa. In coal technology we lead the world, and we derive both our electricity and transport fuel from this source. Our usage of this fuel is escalating dramatically. The hon. the Minister himself gave us some figures today. I can extend these figures. By the year 2020 we will be using almost 740 million tons annually. It is an incredible figure and a tremendous escalation.

Our coal exports of course were 44 million tons, allowable in terms of the last announcement that was made, and when our new coal-fired power stations are in full operation, and Sasol 2 and Sasol 3 are also in full production, our coal usage will be very much greater. Coal, however, we must always remember is a finite source of energy, and one day it will run out in South Africa. By that time we must have created other sources of energy. This I believe is perhaps the most important factor that we can come to, namely the creation of sources of energy from infinite rather than from finite sources. I should just like to read one short extract from what the Petrick Commission had to say about our coal resources in this country, and I quote from their report (page 79)—

That was a view put forward by the Petrick Commission which reported in 1975. Since then we know that the hon. the Minister has upped the estimates of our reserves, which does make a difference. There is no doubt that our coal exports have been of great benefit to the coalmining industry and to South Africa in general. These exports should be continued and perhaps even increased. I had already written this down when the hon. the Minister made his announcement. But we must now develop alternate sources of power, and I believe that brings us fully into the energy debate.

I have already referred to the two sources of energy, namely the finite and the infinite. I gain the very firm impression, and I should like the hon. the Minister’s comment on that, that we in this country concern ourselves intelligently and well in terms of our finite resources. I have already dealt with energy in terms of coal. In terms of oil, we of course do not have any. Having spent R216 million of the taxpayers’ money in the last few years, all we have really learnt is where oil is not.

Would you not have done it?

In addition we are going to spend an extra R78 million this year.

Do you want us to stop?

No, I have not suggested that at all. What I am proving is simply that we have spent a lot of money on finite resources. The last finite resource is atomic energy, and there we shall spend R68 million this year on research, while we shall spend an incredible R173 million, almost half of the department’s total budget, on uranium enrichment. A total of R319 million out of a total of over R385 million is thus being spent directly on finite sources of energy. By comparison the amount spent on infinite sources is a drop in the bucket, an absolute trifle. Yet, in the long run, our infinite resources can prove to be the most economic. To start off with, let us look at hydro-electric power. It certainly is economic, and yet municipalities who have wished to invest in hydro-electric power have been refused permission to do so and consequently had to use Escom power. I would refer the hon. the Minister to the case of the Maclear municipality. In 1979 they received a report of estimates from a firm of professional engineers, whom the Government also uses a lot.

That report said to the Maclear municipality that they could get 1 200 kW.h of power per month to Maclear and Ugie at a cost of R18 368 per month. To supply 1 000 kW.h to those two municipalities through Escom was going to cost them R25 200 per month, a difference of almost R7 000 per month. Yet the municipalities were refused permission to go ahead with the creation of a hydro-electric power station for their own power resources. Escom is now to supply the electricity and it will be there by January 1982. This will no doubt create a greater strain on Escom’s limited resources in the winter of 1982. The hon. member for Umhlanga, who was born there, will know that it can get mighty cold in Maclear and that a lot of heating is necessary there during the winter.

Therefore the first point I wish to make is that we must expand our hydro-electric generating capacity to its maximum potential as soon as possible. Turbine technology now makes possible low-head dams. Huge drops to move the turbines are no longer necessary. Yet how many hydro-electric plants have been tendered for by Escom or by the Government since the oil crisis in 1973? In fact, I doubt that any have been tendered for. I am aware that we are going in for pumped-storage schemes. There is one in the Drakensberg and one here in Cape Town, but let us have a look at the Orange River scheme as a case in point. The original scheme, as put before this House, showed that the whole scheme from the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam down to the Eastern Cape would be studded with power stations. But what has happened? They have not been proceeded with. Although they were shown on the plan, most of them were shelved. I believe we have coal generation on the brain and huge power stations producing up to 3 600 mega-watts and more in the future, but we must also develop our other resources but, because it can only be to our benefit. Apart from hydro-electric power as an infinite resource, there are of course many others, and in due course other hon. members on this side will be referring to these. Plant material is one source, while wind and sun energy are other sources that we must not ignore. We must ask ourselves whether we do enough in this country to encourage, stimulate and initiate research and development of these sources of energy. I do not believe that we do. Yet with every year that passes our fossil fuels become more depleted.

We are world leaders in coal technology, and I would like to see that we also become world leaders in solar and wind energy. With our vast platteland areas, think of what wind-power generation with the necessary storage batteries could do for the farmers who are miles away from Escom. It would be of tremendous advantage to them.

In the United States people who instal solar heaters in their homes get a tax advantage. Why not here? In France and England daylight saving is instituted every summer. Why not here? Are we doing enough? Have we a policy? In the coal, atomic and oil exploration fields, yes, but in other fields I doubt it.

The last point I wish to make before moving to Escom in particular, relates to internal and external sources. One of the main causes of our power shortages and blackouts this winter has been the lack of supply from Cabora Bassa, a source over which we have no control. Another such source is enriched uranium. While South Africa continues to discriminate on the grounds of colour, the supply of enriched uranium from overseas for power stations will always have a question-mark against it. When will we be able to supply enough enriched uranium from our own resources to keep Koeberg operating? I do not know. The answer is perhaps classified. However, one thing I do know is that we would be clearly unwise to invest in more nuclear energy facilities in South Africa until such time as we can supply our own raw materials from within our own borders.

In the short time remaining to me, I wish to deal briefly with two items only in regard to Escom. Escom of course supplies electricity, but in terms of the legislation which governs its operations it has been a separate undertaking that charges different tariffs. It can do nothing else without breaking the law. We believe that that law must be changed. It is a law that was passed for an undeveloped country by comparison with the industrial giant that South Africa is today. It is a law that was passed before we had even envisaged a national grid of electricity in South Africa, and I submit that a national grid should mean a national price. Yet we have a hotchpotch of charges. There is a variety of tariff charges through the different undertakings, and that create enormous difficulty. I believe that this is stupid and inequitable in the extreme, considering that the power is coming from the same sources. This is recognized, and in the censure debate the hon. the Prime Minister himself said that concessions would have to be made in terms of electricity tariffs. This will cost the taxpayer money; yet if tariffs were equalized, this would not be necessary.

Do you support a national price for petrol?

I will get to that in due course. If the hon. the Minister will give me another ten minutes now I will react to it fully.

The second point I wish to make regarding Escom is their method of capital formation through higher tariffs. They showed a loss of R98 million in 1980; yet R586 million was paid to their capital development fund from revenue and investment income. If I made losses like this, I could end up a millionaire. This method of raising capital was formulated primarily because of lack of overseas financing and, to a degree, because of Government short-sightedness in the early seventies. That situation is no longer with us. Funds are available and should be used. Let me pose a direct question: If we had not raised this R586 million from revenue, could we have borrowed it externally or, to a degree, internally? Surely, for last year the answer was yes. It might be different next year, but I would recommend that when funds are available in this way, they should be used and the capital development fund should be used to cushion rates increases for the next few years. 25% of the tariffs we pay goes into these funds. We believe this should be progressively reduced to no more than 10%. This would be more in line with international public utility pactice.

I am afraid I have some time ago already run out of the 20 minutes that I have allowed myself. I still have several points but I shall leave them for later. I hope the hon. the Minister will in due course react to the various points I did make.

Mr. Chairman, to start with I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said in reference to his predecessor, the former member for Constantia. That former hon. member set a very good and responsible example in these debates and I hope with all my heart that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has now succeeded him—and I congratulate him on this—will follow in his footsteps. I must say that there were occasions this morning when I had my doubts on that score.

Pursuant to this I wish to say to the hon. member that the strategic needs of overseas countries have absolutely nothing to do with the policy followed by this country. The policy we follow in this country will at all times be in the best interests of the people of this country and not aimed at satisfying countries abroad.

I should also just like to refer to the former hon. member for Stilfontein, Mr. Koeks Rossouw. He occupied a position equivalent to that of the former member for Constantia and in his characteristic way he also made his contribution to these debates. On this occasion I should also like to pay tribute to him.

There is little to argue about regarding the research aspect broached here by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, but it is unfortunately true that research must be adapted to the technical possibilities we have in this country. It is not merely a question of making a sum of money available and then saying there will be research. The hon. member made a very interesting point when he referred to uniform electricity tariffs throughout the country. This is something the rural areas have been requesting for a long time. I suggest that the hon. member approach the urban constituencies, particularly Port Elizabeth Central and also his former constituency, East London North, and ask those city dwellers to support this idea, because this will help us a great deal.

But they will, because they pay a far higher rate than people on the Rand.

To be able to estimate the importance of minerals and energy in the South African economy one must take a comprehensive and balanced look at the department whose Vote is being discussed in this committee today. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to deal with this on the basis of three basic questions. In the first instance, how important and how extensive are the activities of the Department of Mineral and Energy affairs? In the second place, what aspects or inputs are important to establish an effective mineral and energy policy? In the third place, to what extent are this hon. Minister and his department succeeding in dealing successfully with the task entrusted to them?

As regards the extent of its activities, I should like to congratulate the department wholeheartedly on an excellent annual report which, for the first time, also contains a chapter on energy. The mines in this country alone provide job opportunities to ¾ million people, at an annual remuneration of R2 600 million. The total mineral sales for the past year were valued at R15 000 million. This is the largest item in the balancing of our international trade balance. What image of the Republic does this department project overseas? I should just like to quote a single paragraph from the Santini sub-committee’s evidence before the American House of Representatives. After the report had referred to South Africa as a reliable supplier of minerals, it stated—

It goes on to say—

This is the image of South Africa that is projected. This is a fine testimonial for the exploiters of minerals in South Africa. It is however at the same time a good testimonial for the policy—with its stability—under which these minerals are exploited. As regards energy, I refer only to Escom’s sales of approximately 88 000 million Kwh of electricity, totalling R17 072 million. This represents only about 20% of the total energy consumption in this country. It does not take a prophet to see that minerals and energy will form the most important economic cornerstone for the foundation of a constellation of Southern African States.

In the second place, what aspects or inputs are important to an effective mineral and energy policy? I should like to mention a few. In the short term, action must certainly be aimed at preparedness in an immediate crisis situation caused by sanctions or military action. Therefore there has to be stockpiling of vital minerals which we do not possess. This is in fact happening. In the medium and long term our policy must surely be aimed at independence as regards energy requirements, as well as the greatest possible degree of refinement of our metals and minerals.

In the field of refining there is a wide field still lying fallow, and this applies to Namaqualand with its variety of minerals and its large reserves of Coloured labour. Even a diamond-cutting factory in Namaqualand would be a logical development. While talking of diamonds, I should also like to express the hope that with the granting of marine concessions along the Namaqualand coast the people of Namaqualand, White and non-White, will not be forgotten.

However one looks at the functions of this department, in the short or long term, research is of decisive importance. There I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. In the first place there must be research to ascertain the mineral and energy potential of the country, as is being done by the Geological Survey Division. Decisions of tremendous importance depend on this. For example, we must decide whether or not further coal and uranium exports are advisable. Only when this potential is known can other advantages and disadvantages be weighed up against each other, as the hon. the Minister is doing with great responsibility and as he has demonstrated so brilliantly this morning, to this Committee.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely standing up to allow the hon. member to complete his speech.

I sincerely thank the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition. In the second place, research must be undertaken so as to provide an overall picture of the world’s mineral position and the share and position in it of the Republic of South Africa and to monitor this situation from time to time as our Mineral Bureau is constantly doing. This is important information for the determining of our mineral strategy, especially in respect of those minerals in which we fill the first, second and third places in the world supply. In the third place research must be undertaken with a view to the optimum utilization, refining and extraction of metals and minerals from their ores—this is done by the National Institute for Metallurgy—in order to stimulate mineral industries. In the fourth place, fuel research is undertaken by the Fuel Research Institute which is at present part of the CSIR but which could also very fruitfully be made part of this department. In the fifth place, research is carried out by the Atomic Energy Board and its subdivisions in respect of nuclear energy, its uses and—very import ant—the control of possible consequences of its use.

Mr. Chairman, minerals are mined where they are found, but energy one can take to where it is needed. With our policy of decentralization the balanced distribution of electrical power throughout the country is of the greatest importance. For this reason I listened with great satisfaction this morning to the announcements by the hon. the Minister in connection with the supplying of electrical power to the rural areas, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank him and everyone else involved most sincerely.

Closely allied to this is price control of both liquid and solid fuels and the measures to keep prices as low as possible. Here I refer, for example, to the rationalization policy for filling stations and the measures to prevent the cross transportation of fuel, and in the second place, the transportation of coal at special tariffs compensating for distance, and in the third place, the non-profit policy of Escom. It is true that criticism has been levelled at Escom’s price policy, particularly because Escom to a large extent has a monopoly. However, the facts speak for themselves. All communities in the country insist on Escom power. For the most part, private supply in competition with Escom, e.g. by local authorities, has thus far been a failure. As a matter of fact, the opinion has been voiced that the favourable position our ferrous alloys enjoy on foreign markets can be ascribed to the reasonably cheap electricity in our manufacturing process.

The next input of importance is the maintenance of a delicate balance between mining and agriculture, because food is an equally strategic product. A great deal of progress has been made in reclaiming land damaged by mining, and very effective legislation has been initiated by this department in this regard. Connected with this is the ingenious reintroduction of water into the dolomitic regions of the West and far West Rand which to a great extent keeps landslides and sinkholes in check.

The last input I wish to refer to—and it is probably the most important—is the welfare and safety of the people who keep this industry in operation. Mining accidents and deaths are always upsetting events and in Order to increase the safety standards further, the International Mine Safety Rating System was introduced in 1980 at a number of mines with very good results. 36 of the largest mines have already received star awards for safety. In addition, the Niewenhuyzen investigation into occupational diseases has been completed and the report is at present being studied.

In conclusion we must consider to what extent the hon. the Minister and his department are succeeding in dealing with and successfully pursuing the task entrusted to them. One need only look at Iscor, Escom, Sasol and the Atomic Energy Board as examples of long-term policy and farsightedness, in spite of criticism levelled at them. I think the hon. the Minister and his chief official, who is fairly new in this position, as well as all the other officials, deserve our thanks and great appreciation at the end of another very successful year.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Namakwaland. His preparation was excellent, we have come to expect of the hon. member. That is why he always makes a very good speech in this House.

I should like to refer to one of the matters raised by the hon. member, namely the importance of our mineral exports. In terms of what the hon. the Minister has told us today about the increase in the export quotas for coal, it is interesting to note what is said on page 75 of the department’s report for 1980—

So we are not talking only about the Western powers, but about all the industrial countries throughout the world. I find this a very good illustration of what the hon. member for Namakwaland said in connection with our image abroad.

†In the very brief time available to me, I should also like to pay tribute to the previous member for Berea who was the main spokesman here for the NRP. The hon. the Minister no doubt remembers him as a very incisive and determined member of Parliament, one who put the cause of energy conservation and expansion very well. I am, however, getting a little bit concerned, like previous speakers I am also a new spokesman on energy in this Parliament. It seems to me that spokesmen on energy vanish from the scene rather quickly. I hope that we will now change that trend so that some of us at least will survive and remain in Parliament.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we welcome the recommendations and announcements he made today regarding the coal export quota. Of course, we also welcome his announcements regarding electricity tariffs. These are all very positive improvements, and therefore I will not spend very much time on them. It is a development that has been asked for over a number of years, and I think under the hon. the Minister’s guidance this will do a lot of good for South Africa.

The one aspect I wish to deal with during this particular 10-minute period available to me, is the question of the petrol price in South Africa. We fully appreciate the reasons why it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to impose the most recent petrol price increase. Here I want to refer in particular to one example of how necessary it was to provide the oil companies with an additional margin. I refer to a report which appeared in The Natal Mercury yesterday under the heading “Treks’ half year profits fall”. The report reads—

The reason given by the management of the organization for this reduction is that the ratio between the rand and the dollar has changed. We accept that. What I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about, however, is the total price of petrol. Owing to the many reasons of which we are all aware, we in South Africa have developed the technology of extracting fuel from solids, from fossil fuels such as coal, to a fine art. We have produced Sasol 1 and 2 and Sasol 3 is on its way. Hopefully Sasol 4 will come about as well. I believe that this is absolutely essential. We have taken absolute advantage of the technological development but I do not believe that we have taken advantage of the economic benefits to South Africa which could flow from this highly sophisticated technological development. If one bears in mind the fact that the production costs of a litre of petrol in South Africa are in the vicinity of 15c per litre, according to my calculations, and that the average selling price of a litre of petrol in South Africa today is 58c, and that the State takes administered costs in the region of 24c per litre, then I believe that we are implementing an incorrect base line policy as far as the price of fuel is concerned. I say this for the very simple reason that we are administering costs at the base line of production. When one takes into consideration the multiplyer effect that flows from this which means that every litre of petrol which commerce, industry and mining use is calculated into the costs and that right through the process people add on their profits, ultimately the multiplyer effect of an administered cost of 24c per litre on the base line probably ends up at the final consumption point with a multiplyer effect of at least three times that figure. In other words, the cost input in respect of the 24c per litre, the administered costs, becomes a cost that is passed on to the consumer which is in the region of 75c as far as the sale of the end product is concerned.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the possibility of reducing the administered costs. These include GST and the levy for Sasol. Of course, this levy is totally unnecessary. We know from the history of Sasol that its share flotations are highly successful. The hon. the Minister knows that when the public was given the opportunity to purchase shares in Sasol the flotation was oversubscribed 31 times. Therefore we do not believe it is necessary to place levy on petrol in order to produce funds for investment in Sasol. There are also customs and excise duties and a number of administered costs are involved as well. I believe that the hon. the Minister will be doing the country a considerable amount of positive good if he would consider reducing these administered costs. The petrol producers and distributors can take their profit margin but I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that the inflationary effect of administered costs on the selling price of petrol is a major stumbling block in the economic development of South Africa. I should also like to say to the hon. the Minister, in association with what the hon. member for Namakwaland said, that South Africa’s attraction as a source of foreign investment, an area in which people from overseas can invest their money, is going to be dependent upon two stabilizing factors. The one is political stability and the other one is going to be its reliability and stability in the field of energy production. We have all the advantages in South Africa to take advantage of a stable energy producing situation. I believe that in future years, certainly within the next two decades, this is going to be one of the primary considerations which overseas investors will take into account before investing their money in production capacities in any other country in the world. We have this magnificent opportunity in South Africa, because of our coal resources, to produce petrol relatively cheaply and in plentiful supply. The technological aspects are no longer a problem as we have now developed this technique to a very fine art. I believe that the time has come for the hon. the Minister seriously to consider reducing the price of petrol.

I believe that the argument the hon. the Minister will use is that this will encourage people to use more petrol. I think that that will be the hon. the Minister’s argument; that we are still to a large extent dependent upon the importation of certain types of crude oil from which we have to produce certain by-products. Perhaps then the problem is a diesel problem and not a petrol problem. However, in the interests of creating jobs, in the interests of reducing inflation and in the interests of attracting foreign capital I believe it will be to the greater benefit of South Africa actually to have a lower petrol price in respect of the administered costs which the hon. the Minister is collecting at the moment on behalf, to a large extent, of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

What about differentiated speed limits?

The differentiated speed limits are not an important factor. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central mentioned it. The individual regulates his speed according to his own tempo even where there is a maximum speed limit—I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that a study be made of this—he may find that not more than 30% of the motorists actually travel at the top speed. One’s average journey is a relatively short one and one’s average journey is at a very much lower speed because of the traffic conditions and because of the density of the traffic.

What maximum do you suggest?

I do not know really. I think one should look at the safety factor and not at the fuel-consumption factor. I do not think the answer to fuel saving lies in speed limits or in the poster parade which the hon. the Minister is going to have. I believe it is necessary, but it is not the main, fundamental reason why people save fuel. They do not do it because of speed limits and they do not do it because of propaganda material although those are necessary to keep people constantly aware of it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North dealt with matters relating to fuel prices, and as other hon. members on this side of the House are also going to deal with this aspect, I shall not react to his arguments.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as well as the hon. member for Namaqualand referred in the course of their speeches to the importance of South African minerals. I should like to take this point a little further.

In the ’eighties, mineral raw materials have a key function in the world and are also beginning to play a decisive role in international politics. Minerals have acquired a new standing in the world. For the great world powers the availability or otherwise of mineral raw materials has become decisive for the achievement of their ideals at the national and international level.

The subcommittee on mining of the American House of Representatives, in its criticism of the USA’s self-defeating policy even referred to this state of affairs as a devastating raw material war. Statements of this nature and the large number of international conferences on raw materials held recently, indicate serious concern about dwindling natural resources.

The fear that resources will be exhausted is however not the only or the most important fear. The possible utilization of minerals as a political weapon, as was the case with oil in 1973, and their becoming involved in the East-West power struggle, is much more disturbing. If one also considers the unrest and uncertainty in the two most important raw material producing areas, the Middle East and South Africa, one can begin to understand that it is possible to speak of a raw material war.

South Africa naturally has a direct interest in such a resources war. As a matter of fact, South Africa’s unique mineral wealth, together with its strategic position on the oil route around the Cape between the Persian Gulf and West Europe, makes it the focal point about which this entire struggle revolves.

In many respects our country dominates the exploitation of raw materials in the world. As regards minerals, our country is unique in more than one respect. Although South Africa comprises less than 1% of the earth’s land mass, it has the largest known deposits of gold, chrome, platinum group metals, manganese, vanadium, asbestos and vermiculite.

For example, South Africa controls 80% of the world’s chrome reserves. It has 78% of the world’s manganese reserves, 75% of the platinum and 49% of the vanadium reserves. For the platinum group, chrome, manganese and vanadium, the only alternative source is the Soviet Union.

A further unique aspect is the fact that the greatest concentration of strategic minerals in the world is to be found in South Africa. An official table issued recently shows that South Africa is the free world’s largest supplier of no fewer than 11 of the 20 raw materials which armaments and other industries in the Western world simply cannot do without.

If one considers the Western industrial countries, for example the West European countries, Japan and the USA, one notices the critical dependence of these countries on overseas countries for their minerals and metals. As regards six strategic minerals—chromite, manganese, cobalt, bauxite, copper and nickel—Western Europe and Japan are at the moment dependent on imports for between 97% and 100% of their requirements.

The USA is slightly better off, but as regards strategic minerals, they, too, fall far short of the mark. The USA is self-sufficient as regards only five of the 27 minerals considered absolutely essential for modem industries and defence forces. As regards strategic minerals such as cobalt, chrome, platinum and manganese, the USA is almost totally dependent on South Africa.

Looking at the Soviet Union, one notes that this country is not so badly off. Russia is self-sufficient as regards 21 of the 27 strategic minerals, and it is not dependent on imports for more than 50% of the other six. The Soviet Union is also well aware of this Western problem, and it will naturally make use of this in its struggle for world domination. More than half a century ago Lenin, the champion of Russian expansionism in the world, pointed to strategic minerals as the weak link in the Western defence set-up.

Against this background one can therefore understand why South Africa would be of so much value to Russia. If South Africa were ever to be forced out of world trade, whether by way of internal strife or by economic boycotts, the Soviet Union would be the major producer of four strategic minerals—chrome, manganese, vanadium and platinum. It is almost ironic that South Africa and the Soviet Union are the largest, and in some cases the only, suppliers of various key minerals. If the Soviet Union could therefore gain control of South Africa’s minerals, and the West’s vital artery around the South African coast, it would undoubtedly be in a powerful position. It would not be difficult to bring the Western industrial countries to their knees economically from this position. The view that the Soviet Union can win a Third World War by denying the West access to the strategic raw materials of the Middle East and South Africa, would therefore seem to be irrefutable.

Hogberg wrote in 1980—

A raw material war is therefore not beyond the bounds of possibility. Whereas oil was used as a political weapon in 1973, minerals are now the second resource coming to the fore as a power factor in world politics.

Against this background the extremely important role which South Africa can play in the West as a raw material producer is very clearly emphasized. It is therefore not a matter for surprise that Dr. Chester Crocker, the American Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, could say very recently that it is a fact—not an opinion or propaganda, but a fact—that South Africa is the Saudi Arabia of minerals.

Minerals are therefore playing a steadily increasing role in the power struggle between East and West. The Soviet Union is using this weak link in the Western defence to bring the West increasingly to its knees. However, these new circumstances are also creating an excellent opportunity for our country, with its wealth of minerals, to become a factor of irreplaceable significance in the international community. South Africa has the expertise, the reliability and the political stability to utilize these riches and to place them at the disposal of its friends in the West. South Africa can therefore perpetuate its value as a Western ally, provided that the West awakens from its self-defeating dream in time.

It has been said on occasion that South Africa’s space-age minerals were placed in its soil millions of years ago. Imperialism has been a Russian ambition since the days of Peter the Great in the 17th century. The energy crisis reared its head in 1973. Today these three factors are combining to increase South Africa’s value to both the West and the East.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Geduld has pointed out once again that South Africa is indeed fortunate to have the mineral resources which it has at its disposal and that these mineral resources, apart from forming the very backbone of the economy of our country and the foundation for our prosperity, are also of vital significance to the economy and the security of the entire Western world. However, I want to express one word of warning, and that is that we must not look to our mineral resources as being the factor that will save South Africa in terms of the relations among our own internal groups and with other countries in the world. Until we establish a system of social, economic and political justice for all the communities within our country …

We are busy with that.

… then nothing whatsoever can save us from the wrath of our own groups or the outside world. I think a far-sighted and intelligent approach would be to use these other natural advantages that have been bestowed upon us to assist us in achieving social, economic and political justice, because that is the only basis for the security and prosperity of our country and all its peoples in the future.

We are doing exactly that.

The hon. the Minister says they are doing that. The hon. member for Namakwaland said that the hon. the Minister spoke very well and that he had great admiration for him. I want to say that what we want in that hon. Minister’s position is a man who will do things, a man who will take action and a man who will see to it that results are achieved.

*Very briefly, we are appreciative of the announcement by the hon. the Minister that certain tariffs and policy changes are to be made that will assist farmers to obtain electricity on their farms. I want to point out that it goes much further than just providing electricity as an assistance to farmers to enable them to carry out their normal farming operations. It goes very much further in two respects. I think that electrification of the rural areas can result in the substantial cutting of production costs and therefore also in bringing down of consumer prices in South Africa. It has been pointed out to me that in the USA, between 1935 and 1950, as a result of the creation of the Rural Electrification Administration, which was a consequence of the New Deal of Roosevelt, it became possible to electrify 85% of the farms in the USA by 1950.

I think it is common cause that that was a very big factor in bringing down consumer/ producer costs in the United States. However, in South Africa there is another very big advantage, and that is that electrification of the farms will, in fact, have as a direct consequence a reduction in the destruction of the environment in terms of our natural bush, and it will also make a contribution to the combating of soil erosion, which is a very big threat to the future of our country in terms of our ability to produce food to feed our people.

The hon. the Minister also announced increased coal exports, and we obviously support these actions taken by the Government in this respect. We would, however, like to say that this particular decision must always be subject to continuous reassessment in terms of the real interests of South Africa, because we are not dealing here with the export of a resource for profit only. We are also dealing with the export of a resource that can be a matter of life and death to the future of our country, and therefore it should be subject to continuous reassessment in the direct interest of South Africa at all times. What we are looking for here are flexible policies. The Government must look to flexible contracts, rather than binding the country for decades in terms of fixed contracts. The Government should also consider what the situation will be in regard to the infrastructure that is created for the export of coal, if those exports at some time have to be reduced or stopped altogether.

When I speak about action required from the hon. the Minister, I should like to raise one particular point that was also referred to by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and that is the need to take positive and immediate steps to see to it that as far as is possible we beneficiate our minerals before export, for obvious reasons, particularly in terms of the economic interests of South Africa.

This hon. Minister has the good fortune of being in charge of a very valuable and important department. Last year our mineral exports increased in value by 45% and reached a total of R8 500 million. The mining industry last year employed 800 000 people, who earned salary and wages to the value of R2 442 million. So obviously this industry is an extremely important one for South Africa, in fact a pillar industry in our country.

One aspect of this industry is our gold industry. Gold has obviously been the factor that initiated and propelled South Africa’s economic prosperity for a very, very long time. However, gold as an industry will decline and will eventually disappear as an industry, and we must at this very early stage evolve a plan to see to it that South Africa does not suffer economically as a result. I want to make this point to the hon. the Minister: An industry that must be developed, to a far greater degree than it has already been developed in South Africa, is the iron and steel industry. If one looks at the industrial economy of America over the last 100 years, or at the industrial economy of West Germany, particularly after World War II, one sees that the very foundation of their industry, the skeleton or basis, was the iron and steel industry. All other industrial activities were built around and on the foundation of that particular industry. South Africa’s leaders a long time ago were farsighted enough to develop in South Africa a fine, vast and stable iron and steel industry. We are today the world’s largest source of ferro alloys, for instance, and 30% of ferro-chrome comes from South Africa. Last year we exported 1,35 million tons of ferro alloys at a total value of R420 million. It is already a very significant part of our industry. We also exported 18 million tons of iron ore and many millions of tons of coal. The point I want to make is that we have the potential in South Africa to expand our iron and steel industry to a much greater extent than is the case at the moment. It is in any case far cheaper in the long run, once you have established your industry, to export finished products in the form of ingots and sections for other products based on iron and steel. One finds that the transport costs involved in exporting for instance iron ore, coal or even lime, is much higher compared with that of the finished product, which has a very much lower weight and is a much more compact product.

You should speak to Dawie about that.

I will speak to the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism about this, but this hon. Minister is also involved because he produces the base products. I think he is very directly involved.

The argument is always that there is a problem in obtaining capital. This is one of the factors involved in the establishment of such an industry. It is, however, not really a problem. As the hon. member for Durban North pointed out, the public share issue for Sasol 3 and 4 was over-subscribed 31 times. South Africa has far more capital available than we sometimes realize, and it must be tapped. We have all the labour required. In fact, it could make a tremendous contribution to providing job opportunities for the many thousands of unemployed people in our society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in view of the recent problems in connection with Cabora Bassa, the question has arisen as to whether Escom can supply the power we really need, especially with a view to the future. The problem is that we in this country waste electricity. We do not realize the problems involved in supplying the whole of South Africa with the power it uses day and night in its factories. Frequently new factories are planned and when those factories come into operation, Escom is expected to supply the power without further ado. I am therefore very pleased with the hon. the Minister’s new plan for energy conservation in South Africa, because we shall have to make an effort to utilize our energy resources better and use them more sparingly. During the past five years, our electricity sales have increased by 8,6% per annum. This is more than at the start of the ’seventies. The question is: What caused this? This links up with what other speakers mentioned here, viz. the change in our industrial structure. Whereas in the past we were a country with an industrial structure based on the manufacture of consumer products, at present, and particularly during the past decade, there has been the tendency to process minerals.

I can mention many examples of this. We need only think of the expansion in the case of alloys, the development of Sasol and the development of Iscor. We therefore find that our industrial consumption—i.e. the direct link-up—increased by 10,3% per annum. Our industrial consumption is already 33,6% of our total sales. There is however a further factor which caused our electricity consumption to increase rapidly. I am of course referring to the oil crisis. There is a large-scale change-over from diesel to electricity, and provision must be made for this.

In the third place there is an increasing degree of automation taking place in our industries. It is said that the wages for skilled and unskilled workers are rising rapidly. A fourth aspect is that our consumers are buying more electrical appliances. We need only think of televisions and washing machines. We now also have the provision of electricity to our Black residential areas. This will also have a major effect on the consumption of electricity in the future.

These expansions took place notwithstanding the recession we were experiencing. At the same time we had a capital outflow during the ’seventies. Escom was therefore forced to increase its tariffs drastically to be able to initiate and expand its capital development fund. During this period, especially after the increase in tariffs, tremendous attacks were launched on Escom. There were references to Megawatt Park and the Escom clubs. Escom was savaged at every possible opportunity, even in this House. Incidentally I looked at the debate last year, especially the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. On the one hand it is said that one may not draw money from the capital market, because this disrupts the capital market. However, one may not increase tariffs either, because then one makes a profit. What, then, is one to do?

We must accept that there will be further tariff increases. During the past two years Escom has announced four new power stations. These stations require capital. I want to congratulate Escom on the fact that it has awarded the contracts for all four of the stations, because as due to the capacity problems overseas Escom was able to have the stations erected at very reasonable prices.

I should like to refer here to a presidential speech delivered by Mr. Norman to the South African Institute of Electrical Engineers, in which he pointed out that if the demand for electricity increases by between 7,2% and 5,3%, and the capital cost increases by 10%, capital requirements increase by 18% per annum. He went on to say—

It is said one must borrow overseas, but if one borrows overseas one must of course pay interest on the loans. Escom was also faced with the inflation factor. Coal belongs to the private sector, and the private sector wants its profit. The costs in this connection have increased by 259% during the past decade. The cost of interest and the coal for the generation of electricity from coal, per unit, rose by 275% during the past decade, while the average selling price has risen by only 265%. Therefore, notwithstanding Escom’s problems, the increase in electricity tariffs was caused largely by factors beyond Escom’s control.

I also want to refer to the question of staff. Owing to tremendous expansion, the staff problem is one of the greatest problems we shall be facing, particularly in the next four to five years. Salaries rose on average by 18% and in Escom, on average, by 14%. We must help those people. This is a small commando which will have a tremendous responsibility during the coming decade. I think that where possible we must give these people credit for this. In Europe, a man in charge of a power station costing R2 000 million, is treated with respect, but in South Africa, when we drive past that power station we are not aware of the responsibility of that specific man in looking after that R2 000 million investment. In spite of the problems Escom is experiencing I know they will surmount them, but I think that we must guard against the stream of criticism and disparagement of these people who are doing their best for our country.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the hon. member, Dr. Marais, knows what he is talking about. We enjoyed his speech.

I just want to exchange a few ideas on the possibility of co-operation among neighbouring States and then I want to refer specifically to that part of the Transvaal which I come from. I do so, of course, with reference to the mining industry. There are probably many co-prosperity projects on drawing boards and in blueprints at the moment. We are also engaged in identifying co-prosperity areas. However this will be of no use if we do not make full use of every possible opportunity for co-operation.

One may ask the reason for the sudden need for co-operation at this juncture. In this connection the willingness to co-operate is surely the first step towards good neighbourliness. The inevitable result of co-operation in the economic field has been spelt out here repeatedly and will undoubtedly be spelt out more clearly and in greater detail in the days and years ahead. In the process of co-operation we are certainly also working towards the establishment of a strong counter-strategy to oppose the forces which are not interested in the people of our country, but in our mineral wealth and everything that goes with it.

Co-prosperity areas and opportunities usually have to be created out of sometimes nothing and sometimes very little. In my part of the world, history and nature have seen to co-prosperity possibilities. In fact they are handed to us on a platter. Historically the Tswana people gathered there in groups, and through our policy of homeland development and the further development of this towards the creation of an independent State, we have a great achievement to our credit. In the second place, nature has given us a miracle. The bushveld complex, as it is known, in that area is a unique geological phenomenon. The clever people, the geologists, talk about a magmatic intrusion, which means that liquid and molten rock from deeper lying areas are pushed up and have formed layers at a depth which makes it possible for us to reach them.

We therefore have two interested partners living side by side. These are people who seek their salvation there and nowhere else. Nature forces us to co-operate across boundaries. There is a great deal which the Republic of South Africa can offer in this regard. It extends the hand of co-operation, which is not strange to us because we are used to co-operation. It offers our mining expertise. I am sorry there is no time to talk about shaft-sinking techniques, support in the mines, geophysical research and many other areas in which we are in the lead when it comes to the highly technological development in those fields already perfected in South Africa. Over the years we have created an infrastructure around the mines. We have also made contact with exporting countries, and we have record for being good and reliable suppliers of important minerals to the Western world. Bophuthatswana is a new country with new borders and new horizons, and with two resources, namely minerals and the human hands that are available and want to work and learn how to work. If we utilize all these opportunities, the advantages of a maximum development of the mining industry in partnership will form a sturdy framework for the industrial and economic growth of the whole of Southern Africa. However, there is a bottleneck. The shortage of skilled labour is a major problem, and if we consider that the envisaged expansion plans for the ’eighties are estimated at approximately R12 milliard, it will obviously not be possible to carry out these plans if the skilled manpower is unavailable. What does this mean? It means that the direct economic benefits of every worker in the mining industry and his dependants will be affected by this. In this connection the answer therefore clearly lies in training across the borders. In speaking of training across the borders, I think it is necessary to say a few words here. The time has come for everyone who supports the co-prosperity method as an element in the general development plan of the Black States, not to allow any opportunity to go by to issue a very clear warning to those far-right groups who are playing a dangerous political game by using old and well-known arguments for political gain. If frustrated leaders utter these sentiments, we can understand it, but we cannot allow the citizens of the country to be given the wrong impression in that way by those leaders. I should also like to tell those leaders they must not underestimate the intelligence of the miners. The Government has said repeatedly—and still says—that the training and utilization of our manpower can be done in a non-discriminatory way and we are working out such a programme. This can be done without endangering the job opportunities of any racial group. For this reason we feel we are at liberty to tell the workers to go to their leaders and insist that they be allowed to help, across the borders too, with the training of workers in the homelands.

In conclusion I want to say a few words to the hon. the Minister. I wish to assure him that there is a great deal of appreciation from various quarters for the way in which he negotiates with people. A gentleman listens to and understands the man he is dealing with. I also wish to thank him for visiting Rustenburg recently. We went down a platinum mine together. Hon. members will note that the hon. the Minister is balder than he was in January. We went crawling down the stopes. That is why the hon. the Minister is so bald.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he said. I shall deal with one aspect he discussed, and that is the question of manpower utilization.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the hon. the Minister directly but this time I do not wish to discuss fuel prices. I should like to discuss the question of Escom and the generation of electricity in the light of the fact that the hon. member Dr. Marais is a Commissioner of Escom which falls directly under the portfolio of the hon. the Minister. Let me also say, Sir, right at the outset that I do not say this hon. Minister was the Minister responsible for the problems that I wish to discuss. However, he is certainly going to be the Minister responsible for finding the solutions to the problems I wish to highlight. I want to say in the very first instance that we are appreciative of the efforts which the officials of Escom are making to supply the electricity needs of South Africa. We have no criticism of their capabilities or their dedication or their motivation. We do believe, however, that the problems with which Escom is faced at the moment and with which it is likely to continue to be faced for the next decade unless the hon. the Minister takes urgent action, are due primarily to bad decision-making and policy-making by that side of the House and, in particular, by the Ministers who were responsible for the decision-making for Escom. We are all aware of the fact, Sir, and, not the least, we in Natal, that there is a total energy shortage as far as the supply of electricity by Escom is concerned. They are unable to meet the demands in South Africa and time after time, without warning, and in particular, in Natal, we have power-shedding and power-cuts at considerable cost and inconvenience to the consumers in that part of the world. The reason for this is very easy to find. In 1976 the Board of Trade made the wrong decision. They decided after the Soweto riots that political instability was a risk factor in South Africa and that national growth was going to decline and so they decided that the consumption of electricity would also decline and the necessary capital improvements were not effected. I believe that that was the primary cause of the shortages that we are experiencing today.

We know that the lead time is quite considerable in the building of a generating plant. There is nothing one can do about this and we are dependant upon outside suppliers. However, the primary reason why we have a shortage today and why we shall continue to have a shortage during the next 10 years is because of that very poor policy decision that was made in 1976.

And Cabora Bassa.

Cabora Bassa is a 10% problem. It is, however, an additional factor. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate the fact that we in Natal in particular are very dissatisfied with the power-shedding and the power-cuts that occur all to frequently there. If one looks at the statistics contained in the annual report of Escom for 1980 one finds that consumption demand in Natal decreased to the largest extent of all the regions in South Africa. The increased demand was greater in other regions of South Africa and Natal has actually deteriorated in respect of its demand pattern. On page 61 of this report the hon. the Minister will see that in 1978-’79 the growth demand was 10,66%. In 1979-’80 the growth demand in Natal was only 7,71% as compared to 9,4% in the Border area, 13,8% in the Eastern Cape and 8,81% in the Northern Cape and so one can go on. We find in fact that the tempo of increase in demand in Natal is the lowest throughout the country and yet we are subject to the greatest number of power-cuts. What is even worse, Sir, we are subject to these cuts without warning. We have spoken to the officials of Escom about this, we understand their problems but we want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have an in-depth and intensive study made of the effects of these power-cuts in Natal.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that one organization in Pinetown, a reasonably small organization in plastics manufacturing, loses R50 000 every time there is a power-shutdown of more than an hour. To date they have already lost in excess of R200 000 as a result of the fact that there is no forewarning that there is going to be a power-cut. The reason for this problem is a very easy one to find. It is simply the inability of Escom to produce sufficient electricity. I think the hon. the Minister will have to look at this matter very carefully because he is going to be responsible for the planning of Escom’s generating capacity from here on. As I mentioned earlier on, the reason lies in the decision-making of the Government, the Board of Trade, not to proceed with large capital investment after 1976. They woke up too late and then found that they had to increase capital expenditure and the building of generating plants. If the hon. the Minister wants to see what the dimensions of the problems are, I shall illustrate them, again from Escom’s annual report for 1980. We are told that Escom is in fact going to catch up and that in the construction phase now there is sufficient plant which will be commissioned during the next four, five years to catch up with the demand.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is not going to happen. On the present projection Escom is not going to be able to cater for the demand increase. I want to give the hon. the Minister an illustration from this report. If the hon. the Minister looks at the table provided—I am not sure whether he has it with him at the moment—of the comparison between the annual percentage growth in the GDP in South Africa and the demand for Escom electricity, and then compares that with the anticipated growth rate in the generating capacity of Escom, he will find the following: During the period 1977 to 1980 the electricity demand grew at a rate of 8,6% while the economy grew at an average rate of 3,5% per year. During that period Escom’s rate of production capacity increase was 10% per annum. If one looks at the projections for the next 10 years, one will see that Escom is again going to increase its production capacity by only 10% per annum. Yet the hon. the Minister of Finance and other well-known economists have told us that South Africa must grow at a minimum tempo of 5% per annum just to create sufficient jobs to absorb the people who will be coming on to the employment market.

If Escom was unable to cope with the demand under the circumstances when the GDP grew at an average of 3,5% per annum, how is it going to cope with an increased demand when the GDP is going to grow at a rate of 5% per annum? How does the hon. the Minister expect Escom to be able to provide the required amount of electricity?

There is also a fundamental flaw in the policy direction of Escom regarding the employment of members of other race groups. The hon. member for Rustenburg indicated that the policy of the Government is to maximize and utilize all the labour available to it, but in this report and in the responses which I got from the Officials of Escom we are constantly told that one of the reasons why plant was not able to be maintained effectively and had to be taken out of commission only when something went wrong seriously, was the shortage of skilled workers. I think everybody will agree in general that there is a shortage of skilled workers in South Africa. Again, of course, the reasons are to be found in the policy decisions in previous years of hon. members on that side of the House. I know that they are making a tremendous effort to rectify that position.

However, we now have the ridiculous situation where the Drakensberg pumped-storage scheme which is predominantly based in Natal is prohibited from bringing Indians on to its staff. I ask the hon. the Minister why, in their very home area—we can even call Natal the homeland of the Indians in South Africa—Escom is not allowed to use Indian technicians and officials there.

It is ridiculous.

It is absolutely ridiculous as the hon. member for Umhlanga said.

Yet we are told consistently that it is the shortage of manpower which is hampering proper maintenance and effective running of the plant. There we sit with a massive reservoir of people who are willing to work, who are able to work and who have the appropriate standard of literacy to be able to be trained in order to work efficiently in the Escom plant, but Escom is prohibited from employing Indians in the Drakensberg pumped-storage scheme.

This is only one example; where are the other examples which we do not know about where this type of double talk is occurring? On the one hand the Government says that we are going to utilize the manpower to its maximum ability, but on the other hand organizations such as Escom are prohibited from utilizing that labour properly. It is very simple—discrimination against Indians. I ask the hon. the Minister why, and whether it will still be his intention to perpetuate the policy decision that was made.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that Escom is going to play one of the most vital roles in energy production in South Africa. Of all sources of energy, the coal-based source will be tapped predominantly. We are going to have some nuclear energy, but predominantly our energy is going to be based on coal. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to review capital expenditure now and to increase it for future requirements.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North perceived a number of problems surrounding the provision of electricity. I believe that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with an effective reply with regard to his arguments. Therefore, I shall not elaborate further on this.

This afternoon I should like to express a few ideas in connection with the protection on the one hand and the importance on the other, of the White mine-worker. Therefore, the question immediately arises why we want to argue that the White mine-worker needs protection. Of course, he also needs the interest of the community that he serves.

In the first place, the issue is probably the importance of the mining industry as such. It stands to reason that everyone is very much aware of the tremendous importance of minerals. This morning the hon. the Minister has already pointed out the tremendous reserves of coal that we have at our disposal. We all know what tremendous quantities of minerals this country has at its disposal. However, it would be no use if we had all these strategic minerals, and did not have the people to mine those minerals. It is in this very regard that the White mine-worker, and other mine-workers too, play an extremely important role. With regard to the White mine-worker, however, it is particularly important because they comprise a very small number in comparison to the total labour force in the mining industry. However, this small group of people has a tremendous amount of technical skill at their disposal. As a result of the importance of the mining industry, and as a result of the fact that it is only a small group of people that has the necessary skill, I believe it is justified that the White mine-workers definitely deserve the protection of all those who can possibly grant it to them. Now, of course, the question immediately arises how this protection should be granted to them. The first way which is quite obvious, is that safer employment opportunities and conditions of employment should be created for them. We know that the mining industry has already made a great deal of progress in that regard, and therefore also succeeds in ensuring the safety of the White mine-workers, as well as that of all the other mine-workers. Mention has already been made of this this morning, and I should like to associate myself with this by expressing my pride in various mines in my area, in the Free State goldfields, which have already achieved a great deal with regard to this important question of safety.

Furthermore, we can also protect the White mine-worker by ensuring that he has favourable conditions of service. I want to admit at once that the employers are doing a great deal in this regard and that the conditions of service of mine-workers in general definitely compare very well with the conditions of service in every other profession in our country. In the third place, it is essential to protect mine-workers by means of the necessary security of employment. This is something that should be provided to the White mine-worker. However, I shall come back to this again later. At the moment I just want to make the following statement. A great deal is already being done—I am thinking in particular of the new labour legislation last year—to protect the interests of the White mine-worker, as well as those of other mine-workers, by means of legislation in that sphere. Last but not least, the White mine-worker can also be protected by means of the status that he deserves within the community. I want to express the misgiving today that the mine-worker does not always receive adequate honour and recognition for the work that he performs under extremely difficult circumstances. When most other people may be enjoying the sunlight or fresh air, in more favourable climatic conditions, the mine-workers are earning their bread far underground in extremely difficult circumstances. I am afraid that when they are above ground they do not always receive recognition for the important work that they do.

Now, however, the question arises at once who should provide this protection to the White mine-workers. I feel there are three groups in particular who are equipped to provide that protection. The first of these is the trade union itself, to which the mine-worker belongs. In the second place there is the employer, and in the third place the State also has a responsibility with regard to the protection of White mine-workers. I want to argue that …

What must they be protected from?

If the hon. member for Bryanston were to remain quiet for a moment, he would hear. [Interjections.]

I am arguing that it is the right, the duty and the responsibility of the trade union to see to the interests of its people. No one can deny this. This is what they are there for. I also think it is a good thing that there should be such an association. However, in which way will such a trade union be able to grant protection to its members? In other words, how? In the first place, it must be to the benefit of those members on the long term. It will not be of any use simply to work for short-lived benefits whilst it may be to the detriment of the people on the long term. Therefore it is important that they should be enduring. In order to do this, it is also essential that the protective function should not be carried out in such a way that it gives rise to confrontation between the employer and the State and between the employer and the employee. If the trade union does so in such a way, it is already to the detriment of those that it wants to serve. In this regard I want to say at once that it is also the duty of such an employees’ organization not to fall into the trap of political participation, because if it falls into the trap of political participation, it will inevitably cause tension amongst the people that it serves themselves and on the other hand, between the people that it serves and the mine-workers’ organization as such. I shall come back to this too later on. I think it is also the duty of the members of such a mine-workers’ organization not to be taken in tow in this regard. In saying this, I am also fully aware of the problem with which the members of such a mine-workers’ organization are faced. However, I think it is also up to them not simply to follow blindly. When their own rights and privileges on the long term are at issue, they must also contact their own leaders within such a mine-workers’ organization, if necessary.

I said that the employer too has the responsibility of seeing to the protection of the people who work for him. In the final instance it is these people, the employers, who ultimately receive direct financial benefit from the labour of the mine-workers and of course, in the broader sense, the State and all the inhabitants of this country do so too, but it is more specifically the employer. I want to admit at once that the employer makes his contribution by offering fairly favourable conditions of service to his people. I have said this already and I say it once again.

When it comes to pensions, I am afraid that I cannot pay the same tribute to the employers. I say it is a disgrace that the mine-worker has to be satisfied with the pension that he is being offered at the present moment. I think that this constitutes exploitation of the best years and the best abilities of the employee. It is not good enough. There may be favourable conditions of service and possibly a housing scheme which compares favourably, but when the mine-worker finally reaches the day when he is to take his rest, he receives a pension that really cannot keep body and soul together and which compares extremely unfavourably with most other Government pension schemes. If one reviews the Government pension schemes, one finds that they are much better than the pension schemes for the mine-workers. I think that the employer should also take a very serious look at this, at least to ensure that his workers can lead a decent life in their old age too.

I want to conclude by pointing out that it is most definitely the duty of the State too to grant the necessary protection to the workers. We cannot argue this away, and it is true not only in regard to the mine-workers, but to all workers. It is the responsibility of the State, for instance, to ensure that the worker is not exploited. It can attempt to do so in various ways, inter alia by means of legislation. I am grateful to be able to say that the State is also doing a great deal in this regard in this very way. However, this will only be able to take place by means of negotiation, because if this negotiating aspect breaks down, it will not be to the benefit of anyone and it must lead to confrontation in the end.

The White mine-worker is concerned about his vested rights, and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister today that we should do everything in our power to establish confidence between the mine-worker and his association, between the association and the Government and between the Govern ment and the employee as such. I am convinced that if we can establish that confidence, it will be in the interest of the mine-worker as such and of the country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia made a brilliant plea here for the protection of the White mine-worker, and I endorse every word he said.

By the end of 1979, there were approximately 9 607 members of the Mine-workers’ Union, who received an average pension of R110 per month. These are people who did not hold a supervisory position in the mine. This afternoon I should like to request that someone should do something urgently, if at all possible, to improve the position of these people. In the light of the fact that the economic prosperity that we are experiencing in the Republic at the moment, was built to a large extent on the pioneering work that these people carried out in the depths of the earth, under extremely difficult conditions, they, possibly more than anyone else, are entitled to an extra grant as a gesture of goodwill.

I am aware of the fact that many of these ex-mine-workers are partly responsible for the position in which they find themselves. Many of them were jointly responsible for the fact that a non-contributory pension fund was chosen by means of a referendum in preference to a contributory fund, which became a reality only in 1949. However, if we take into account the poor economic climate of the time, one can surely understand that immediate service benefits in the form of a higher salary, for argument’s sake, were more attractive than a fund to make provision for the future. I feel that for this reason we should not judge the exmine-worker too harshly for the choice that he made at the time.

In asking for someone to do something to relieve the position of these people, I do not simply want to exclude the State, or the Government. It has always been the standpoint of the Government that the payment of a service pension is a matter between an employer and an employee and that the State may not become involved on principle. It was also argued that, if the State were to make a contribution towards one of the pension funds of the Chamber of Mines, it would be morally obliged also to make a contribution to the 11 000 other private pension funds in the country. I wonder how many of these 11 000 private pension funds would have been in existence today if it were not for the pioneering work of these ex-mine-workers. However, I shall leave it at that. I want to concede that in a capitalistic system this is a valid, sound argument that is continually being raised. However, I want to make bold to point out that with regard to the mining industry, the State has already deviated from this principle of non-intervention by means of legislation that it has introduced. I am referring, for instance, to the Gold Mines Assistance Act of 1968, in which provision is made for the State to grant assistance to certain mines that are unable to fend for themselves. In the nature of things these mines are private enterprises. By the end of 1980, R38 million had already been pumped into these private enterprises in this way. I am aware of the fact that this also means tremendous benefits for the mine-worker concerned, but if the State makes funds available for a private enterprise that cannot fend for itself, I wonder whether the State could not also make a sum available for a pension fund in the mining industry that cannot fend for itself. Even though thus far the State may not have been inclined, quite correctly, to make such financial contributions, it is not to say that the Government is unconcerned about the fate of the ex-mine-worker. In fact, the State is in continual discussion with the Chamber of Mines regarding the fate of the ex-mine-worker. It is also true that it is the privilege of every ex-mine-worker whose pension is inadequate, to apply for a social pension. There are several ex-mine-workers who are receiving social pensions. Adjustments to the means test also mean that more people receive social pensions every year. A big concession on the part of the Government was definitely also the provision that a social pension will not necessarily be withdrawn when the private pension increases. This was a valid complaint of the mining unions which has been effectively eliminated. I think that we can convey our gratitude to the Government for this. Draft legislation which is aimed at putting a stop to the withdrawal of pension funds before the retirement date, as well as draft legislation which is aimed at making it possible to transfer pension benefits from one fund to another, will definitely also improve the position of the mine-worker. We hope that it will be possible for pension benefits to be transferable between the various funds of the respective employers within the mining industry itself, which is not the case at the moment. The obligation—the hon. member for Virginia referred to this too—of seeing to the distress of the ex-mine-worker definitely does not depend on the State in the first place. The employer definitely has a great responsibility too, and this report of the mine-workers’ pension fund indicates that the position of the ex-mine-worker is continually being reviewed. Speaking of the report, I wonder whether this report could not be published in Afrikaans from time to time. It is published in English only. If one bears in mind that the vast majority of the beneficiaries of the fund are Afrikaans-speaking, it would probably be appropriate to have the report published in Afrikaans now and again. In any event, this report indicates that the employers in the mining industry have made a great improvement on former service pensions. Whereas the former service pension was calculated at R10 per year for every year’s service rendered before a pension fund came into operation, it has now been increased by 100%, to R20 per year. The concession was made possible by a sum of R10 million which was paid into the fund by the Chamber of Mines. There is also a gradual increase in funds for this former service pension fund. In 1976 a mere R125 000 was voted, and now the amount has already exceeded R3 million. Like the hon. member for Virginia, I too am convinced that a great deal more can be done.

In conclusion, I am aware of the fact that this is a plea that is made in this House every year. I want to trust this afternoon that the hon. the Minister will adopt the attitude of the judge who is mentioned in Luke 18. A woman came to him with the same request ad nauseam, and because he was afraid that she would tire him as time went by and attack him, he granted her request. I hope that the hon. the Minister is so tired of this request at this stage that he too will grant it.

Mr. Chairman, since my time is short, I shall not react to the plea made by the previous hon. speaker. I should just like to refer again to a matter which I think many hon. members believed had already been disposed of. It is the Nyanga problem again, of course. [Interjections.] I should like to point out today what the contribution of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to that specific problem is. Only when the Government realizes that modem South Africa is a total system shall we find solutions to some of our many problems. We hear about total strategies and this morning we also heard the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs talk about a comprehensive energy policy. In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister also has a planning section to integrate the elements of the total system into his so-called total strategy. Hon. members opposite also keep referring to the so-called duality of our country, i.e. our First World and Third World economy and social development level. However, when the Government has to bring the two together through its task of integration, it fails dismally, especially with regard to the Third World element. The same applies to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. How do the cycle of urbanization and the related squatter problem affect the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs? [Interjections.]

This is very easy to see when one takes an interest in the wellbeing and woe of the millions of people in the heartland of this country and when one knows what influences them. [Interjections.] There are basically two energy cycles which affect those people. The first one is the physiological fuel, namely food, and the other one is domestic fuel for heating and for preparing food. Let us first consider the latter energy element, which also forms a very important component of our total energy cycle. However, it is completely ignored by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. It is this short-sighted policy which is again becoming a thorn in the flesh of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. In kwaZulu, for example, there are 3,2 million people, about half of whom are dependent on a subsistence economy on an area of approximately 3,3 million ha. This means that approximately 50 people per square km are dependent on a subsistence economy. This area, which used to be a Garden of Eden, was able, according to ecologists, to support approximately 50 persons per square km, and with the drought of the last two years, saturation point has been reached and we find ourselves in a completely irreversible situation.

Wood consumption is approximately 1 ton per person per year in kwaZulu. Deforestation has converted formerly valuable water catchment areas into dust bowls, and people have to walk up to 20 km to find a few pieces of wood. Erosion is common and the ground-water level is dropping because it is not being replenished. Cattle manure is being used as fuel, so the soil cannot be fertilized. In short, the heating energy cycle has come into conflict with the food energy cycle for human consumption, and only drastic steps in those areas will be able to save what can still be saved. Even more creative thinking will be required to regain what has been lost.

What is the solution?

You must work out an energy policy.

I shall refer briefly to a few examples. If I had had more than 10 minutes, I could have mentioned many more examples. I went to look at the nine posters exhibited in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building, but not one of them has any bearing on the Third World situation in South Africa. Then we are surprized when those people turn up in the cities where one has only to press a switch and there is light, heating and a hot stove on which food can be prepared, or where one has only to turn on a tap to get clear, clean and warm water.

What have you and your party done about it?

Because of the above-mentioned factors, it is extremely important that research be directed at the use of renewable energy resources. These can be defined as those sources that are constantly or cyclically replenished, and include such resources as solar energy, wind power and biomass. South Africa is ideally suited for the exploitation of solar energy, and I believe that efforts should be directed at achieving this objective as a matter of urgency. The type of technology in the rural areas will obviously have to be simple and relatively cheap. A few suggestions in this regard include the use of simple solar ovens and the use of solar heaters for water. The simplest of all, I think, is the use of the “Wonderbox”, which is now freely available and could save up to 50% on the consumption of wood. I think that all that is required is a good promotions campaign to have greater use made of these possibilities. [Interjections.]

What is a wonder-box?

I can explain that later on.

We need a wonder-“Nat” too.

At the Institute for Natural Resources at the University of Natal research is also going ahead on solar and other technology and I think the hon. the Minister could certainly support that wonderful institute and the work it does. One of the most effective uses of solar energy, which is often overlooked, is the tree and afforestation programmes which should be supported and encouraged wherever possible. I know of no such programme on a domestic scale.

*I wish to conclude. In South Africa we are exporting maize while thousands of people are malnourished. We are also exporting coal while human energy is lost in the search for fuel. It is pathetic to see women and children sitting on rubbish-dumps, using small forks to sift out the last pieces of combustible material. Is there not something wrong in a society where such things are possible? Can we not use 1% of the maize and 1% of the coal which are exported to bring relief in these areas? [Interjections.] Or are we suddenly going to apply the free enterprise system ruthlessly there in the so-called Third World economy? Someone must have a need and someone has the means of satisfying it, but there is yet another factor, i.e. money which has to change hands. Now we suddenly want to apply this ruthlessly in a so-called Third World economy.

Mr. Chairman, if that hon. member’s speech is a reflection of the assets of that party, then I want to say that the PFP is fairly close to bankruptcy. [Interjections.] If an hon. member represents a constituency like Greytown in the House, a constituency in which there are coal mines, inter alia, and he burrows in the rubbish heaps of Langa, I feel it displays nothing but total political bankruptcy.

Your future is going to be determined on the rubbish heaps of Langa.

It seems to me that hon. member and his party have squatters on the brain. Instead of speaking about the fine mining industry in South Africa, he speaks about the squatters of Langa. It really goes beyond one.

The hon. members on your side are always discussing the pleasant side of the matter. I wanted to talk about a matter that we had not heard anything about.

Order! The hon. member has already had the opportunity of delivering his speech.

The hon. member also exchanged a few ideas about solar energy. Only yesterday, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications made a statement here in which he indicated that solar energy is being harnessed in order to operate certain Post Office installations in the Kalahari. In my area one finds that the hot water for large towns is being supplied by solar energy. The Government, the department and our researchers are very involved in giving attention to this. However, the hon. member was so busy dabbling around in the Third World that I prefer to come back to the world in which we are living.

I thought we were in the Third World. You are always saying so.

The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries voted R25 million last year in order to establish farmers in certain de-populated strategic border areas. I want to make a request here today for another strategic border area, viz. the Kalahari. This is in the world in which we are living and not in the Third World of that hon. member.

Are you the “gees van die Kalahari” (spirit of the Kalahari)?

Sir, we released “Kees van die Kalahari” (Baboon of the Kalahari) in Parktown.

You belong there.

I want to put in a word today for this strategic border area of the Republic of South Africa. For strategic reasons, farms in this region must remain occupied by White fanners. We find people there who love that area and who want to remain there. Let me give an example. I had the experience there of a father who pumps water to a certain point for his son, using three engines. From that point, the young farmer travels a distance of 15 km every day in order to take water to 3 000 sheep, and that man wants to remain there because he is making a success of his farming. It is people of this calibre that we want to keep in the Kalahari. It is essential for South Africa that he should remain on his farm. Sometimes circumstances force this man to leave his farm. He is far from his church, the school, the business centre and a place where he can participate in sport.

I should like to give the House a picture of what some of these border areas look like. I should like to give hon. members a sketch of a small section of the territory between the Kuruman border and the Mafikeng border. 59 farms are situated along the Malopo, over a distance of 350 km. Four years ago there were 40 farmers on those 59 farms; today there are only 25 of them. Thirteen of those 25 farmers are young farmers who underwent further training after matric and six of them have a Baccalaureus degree at least. The farmer whose farm is situated closest to the town, is 230 km away from the town. It is for the sake of these people who are living far from facilities, who have to travel on bad roads and enjoy poor radio reception—not to mention television—that I should like to raise two matters today which could make a great contribution towards keeping these farmers on their farms. These are matters that have a considerable effect on the entire platteland.

The first is the petrol price. One of the hon. members has already referred to it. I want to request today that the introduction of a uniform petrol price throughout the Republic of South Africa should be investigated, and I shall try to motivate this. Secondly, I want to ask for it to be made possible for these farmers to obtain Escom power. I want to motivate that point too, and whilst I am on the subject, I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance for having already made it easier, as the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs announced today, for farmers to obtain Escom power. Let us look at the petrol price. This morning I passed by a petrol pump here in Cape Town. 93 octane petrol costs 56,6 cents per litre in Cape Town. In Kuruman it costs 63,4 cents per litre and in Vanzylsrus, 65 cents per litre. It costs R25,47; to fill a tank with a capacity of 45 litres in Cape Town; in Kuruman it costs R28,53 and in Vanzylsrus, R29,25. This is a difference of R3,78 in the price of filling one tank. Here in the city, close to the sea, people are within walking distance of their churches and schools. They are very close to sports complexes where they can go to watch sport or to participate in it. A city dweller can travel on one tank of petrol for a month, whilst these farmers in the Kalahari sometimes use a tankful of petrol simply to go to church or to fetch their children at school on a Friday and take them back again on Monday. This may even require two tanks of petrol. I travel here by bus every morning, and the city dweller has the privilege of being able to travel by bus or train every day to practically any place that he wants to go to. However, I noticed once again this morning how many people travel to their jobs in Cape Town from the northern suburbs, and there is generally just one person in each car. If the people here in the city were perhaps to pay a little more for their petrol and the people in the country who have to travel long distances, perhaps a little less, the city dwellers might utilize public transport more readily and not travel singly by car to their places of employment.

I now come to the mineral wealth of the Northern Cape. The mining of the mineral wealth of the Kalahari requires an efficient Escom network in the area. Today, the hon. the Minister mentioned that Escom is trying to establish an electricity network in the border areas of the Northern Transvaal, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take a very serious look at the possibility of doing the same in the Kalahari area too. When I ask today for the Kalahari to be provided with Escom power too, then I am not asking for power lines to be planted over hundreds of kilometres to far off territories. Escom power lines are already there. Some of these power lines traverse these farms which I mentioned and the mining industry has brought these powerlines to our area. Recently, an investigation was undertaken to take a power network from the Black Rock Wessels manganese mine to the small town of Vanzylsrus, and a mere 25% of the applicants along that line which would have provided power to Vanzylsrus, saw their way through to accepting the offer. We trust that with the announcement made by the hon. the Minister, today, it will now be possible for all these people to do so. At Vanzylsrus, the power for the school is generated by a diesel engine. If a diesel-generator had not been installed at the police station during the past month, they would still have been using gas to illuminate their office at night. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Kuruman. He is known as a man who can speak in great depth and with great compassion about his part of the world. I should like to associate myself with his plea for a uniform petrol price throughout South Africa. In this connection I should like to ask this specific question: What would the position be if a total and absolute fuel boycott were to be successfully instituted against South Africa? What would the position then be in respect of fuel prices in our independent neighbouring States which received their independence from us? Would there still be this tremendous price differ ence which exists at the moment? I know the Government does not sell fuel to our neighbouring States but the fact remains that if such a situation were to arise those independent neighbouring States would be dependent on South Africa for fuel. They would be dependent on the fuel from our Sasols. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister what the position would then be? Would South Africa then supply fuel to the neighbouring States at the same price as we get it in South Africa or would we force the neighbouring States to purchase the fuel at the same price as we in South Africa have to purchase it?

In the first place I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the fact that the department is prepared to open the deep sea areas, the intermediate areas and the shallow areas from the maritime boundary between South West Africa and South Africa to as far south as Cape Columbine to the prospecting of precious stones. It is high time that this piece of coastline was opened to the prospecting for diamonds from the sea. My time is limited but I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of saying that on a subsequent occasion I should very much like to speak in detail and specifically about this subject—i.e. prospecting for diamonds from the sea. However, I should just like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that in considering applications for prospecting for diamonds from the sea, applicants with no experience of prospecting for diamonds from the sea should not merely be written off. Today the position is that one can buy the know-how. One can buy all the knowledge in the world. In this case too, even if one does not have previous direct experience and knowledge of prospecting in the ocean, one can buy that knowledge at a price. I should like to refer here to Notice No. 539 of 1981 which appeared in the Gazette. It appeared on 24 June and I refer to section 7(a). I should just like to mention to the hon. the Minister and the department that the mere fact that a man does not have that first-hand knowledge should not lead to his being rejected out of hand.

In the second place I wish to advocate that if there are Coloured applicants they should receive exceptionally sympathetic consideration. I am not advocating this without reason. I am doing this because Coloured diggers have already told me that if a few of them—I am now speaking of well-to-do, decent Coloured prospectors—were to join forces to form a consortium or company they know in advance that they do not stand a chance against the White applicants. In bringing this to the attention of the hon. the Minister all I am trying to do is to break down what seems to be the tremendous prejudice of the Coloured against the White, because it is also true that in this process there will be concessionaries who will make tens of thousands of rands whereas others will stand to lose the same amount because all those areas are not equally rich in diamondiferous gravel.

I should like to associate myself with the chairman of our study group, the hon. member for Namaqualand, who requested that in any allocation of maritime concessions the Whites and the non-Whites of Namaqualand should not be forgotten. I am pleased that the hon. member made this request, but I should like to place emphasis on the non-Whites in particular.

The hon. member also requested that a diamond-cutting factory should be established in Namaqualand. I should like to give him my full support, but he is in for a rude awakening because I can tell him that no new licences for diamond-cutting factories are being granted. However, one can go to a neighbouring State like Bophuthatswana, Venda or Transkei and apply for a licence for a diamond-cutting factory there. If space is available it will be granted. This simply means that I cannot obtain a licence to operate a diamond-cutting factory in Kimberley.

You will not be able to do the work properly in any case.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He also knows that one cannot get such a thing.

However, one can go to Taungs in Bophuthatswana, just a stone’s throw away, and get a licence there to operate a diamond-cutting factory. One can even get a licence to operate a diamond-cutting factory just outside Pretoria in Bophuthatswana territory. I am pointing this out because I believe it is something the department can rectify. If diamond-cutting factory licences tire no longer granted within the borders of South Africa, that is all good and well and I have nothing further to say about the matter. However if a neighbouring State grants diamond-cutting licences on the basis on which they are being granted, I think there is a possibility for negotiation between our department and the relevant departments of the neighbouring States.

I should like to speak briefly about the digger. I must confess that the time I am allowed is really too short to do justice to the digger. I do not believe there is a group of people in South Africa that works harder than the diggers. Nor do I believe there is a group of people that has done more for the economic revival in South Africa than the diggers. Nor do I believe there are greater adventurers than the diggers. I do not believe there is a group today that works harder and with greater visions and love for its work than the diggers. In spite of their contribution to the economy and to general progress in South Africa, there are also problems concerning the diggers.

The land on either side of a river is usually extremely fertile. This is also the case along the banks of the Vaal River. Seen from an agricultural point of view, that land is among the best and most expensive land in South Africa. In our part of the world one can plant almost anything in that soil and be very successful with it. Irrigation from the Vaal River is also very successful and large and good farms are situated along the banks of that river.

But such land is proclaimed for digging purposes, that land is worthless from an agricultural point of view. To the digger, on the other hand, it is worth its weight in gold.

I should like to go even further and allege that if such land is proclaimed for digging purposes, that land is lost to agriculture. This is the position outside my constituency, from Barkly West all the way down the Vaal River.

I am sorry to do this but at this stage I should like to talk about something which is not too pleasant. So far this debate has been conducted on a particularly high level. However, I must now speak about something which specifically involves my constituency. Perhaps it is occurring throughout the country; I do not know. It is possible that this is also the case elsewhere. Because I am not certain of this, however, I shall only speak about my own constituency. For this reason I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in advance to please institute an investigation into the entire relationship between the digger and the farmer, both in my constituency and in other constituencies in the country. In my constituency we have a situation in which there is squatting on land proclaimed for digging purposes. It is orderly squatting; not the kind of squatting we find at Crossroads and elsewhere. However, it is also unauthorized occupation of land. The people concerned keep sheep, cattle and pigs on land which does not belong to them but to the farmers. Eventually the farmers themselves no longer have any right to or say over their own land. Those people are living there without authority, and no one can eject them, not even the mining commissioner, the police or a single Government department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley-South has my total sympathy in not being able to get a “diamantslyperslisensie”, but this is obviously the price one has to pay and the difficulty one can experience when one supports an ideology which creates independent states in South Africa. I believe the hon. the Minister will give very sympathetic consideration to the hon. member’s problem there.

Unfortunately I have to speak a third time during this Committee Stage before the hon. the Minister replies. I do not know yet what reply he is going to give me in connection with the two previous issues I raised with him. That is, however, unfortunately the way it goes. In this party one of us can take on three hon. members opposite without any problem at all. [Interjections.]

The third issue I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is in respect of our search for oil, and in particular our off-shore oil search. I believe this is something which every nation which is industrialized, semi-industrialized or highly industrialized, has to undertake. The search for oil, even if it proves to be fruitless, in spite of the expenditure of millions of rands and many years of effort, is one of those activities which every nation has to undertake. We cannot afford not to search for oil. There is no question about it. Therefore the more than R200 million that this hon. Minister’s department has spent on the activities of Soekor, we believe, has been a very good investment, even although I stress that the possibility exists that we may end up with no viable oilfields at all. Perhaps, if we are fortunate, we will find a certain amount of gas which could make the whole project viable.

My complaint which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister however, is this. I pleaded with his predecessor, some two and a half years ago, to consider investing R90 million in the construction of an off-shore oilrig along the South African coast. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor said that he was not prepared to invest R90 million in the construction of such a rig. Yet today we find that the hon. the Minister is budgeting for a sum very close to R80 million—this was mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as well, and confirmed by the hon. the Minister too—precisely for the purpose of hiring off-shore drilling facilities. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that his predecessor, I believe made a very serious mistake in not opting for the purchase and construction of an oilrig. In 1979 I took the trouble to look at the costing figures for an oilrig which a shipyard in Durban had just built for an American company. The costs then, all inclusive, of a very modern off-shore drilling rig amounted to R90 million. Today that same oilrig will cost the hon. the Minister’s department, if he happened to invest in it, the sum of R180 million. That means that even if the hon. the Minister’s predecessor had built the oilrig, put it in mothballs and sold it today, he would have made a 100% profit. The escalating costs of construction in marine engineering is going to continue at roughly 20% per annum. It may even go slightly higher. We are far from having completed our off-shore oil exploration programme. The hon. the Minister is a new Minister, he is dynamic and he is a man who is going to put action programmes into effect, as the hon. member for Umhlanga has said, and I again want to appeal to him to see to it that we take advantage of the technology and facilities available in South Africa.

Let us now commission the construction of an off-shore drilling rig at a cost of R180 million. The hon. the Minister may even get it cheaper. At the moment other countries are utilizing our facilities here in South Africa. We have an engineering innovation in the Durban shipyards which will produce the cheapest oil rig construction technique in the Western Hemisphere. I am not including those countries where the Government subsidizes the shipyards very heavily, like in Holland. In Holland the Dutch Government subsidizes shipbuilding to the tune of 45%. However, in South Africa on a straight cost effective basis, and with the fiscal loan arrangements available through the hon. Minister of Finance, it means that we will pay about R180 million. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree that we are far from having completed our oil exploration programme off-shore. It will still be a paying proposition to build the required rig in a South African shipyard.

I now wish to deal with another matter and point out to the hon. the Minister that I think there is a desperate need for co-ordination of fuel utilization in South Africa, for a definite programme of co-ordination. We so often pay lip service to the whole idea of co-ordination and rationalization in the utilization of fuel. I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that about 18 months ago—and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to be sure to talk to the other Ministers about this—the S.A. Railways decided, although I am not sure whether they have actually started to implement the decision, to build their own coal gasification plant here in Cape Town. The S.A. Railways decided to do that at very considerable expense. They are going to produce gas from coal in order to generate the necessary heat required for their engineering and workshop facilities, whilst at the very same time Cape Town itself has one of the best and cheapest producers of gas from coal. Why has the Government decided to go ahead and build its own plant here in Cape Town when a private enterprise facility is available here? The entrepreneurs concerned were prepared to invest very considerable amounts of money to extend their plant in order to cater for the needs of the Railways. The question I want to ask is twofold: Firstly, what has happened to co-ordination between departments for fuel and energy utilization; and, secondly, why has the Railways decided in principle to go into competition with private free enterprise? I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Railways gasification plant will not produce cheaper gas than the private enterprise facility here in Cape Town. I use this purely as an illustration to indicate to the hon. the Minister that very often we talk about rationalization and about utilization of private enterprise, but when it comes to the practice, particularly where State departments are concerned, we find that exactly the opposite applies.

In my previous speech I mentioned the question of the use of Indians in the Drakensberg pumped-storage scheme, which I think stands as a real indictment against the Government’s intentions to utilize the manpower of South Africa to its best potential.

Finally, I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that the portfolio concerned with fuel and energy consumption and utilization in South Africa is one of the most important portfolios we have. I believe that, if we can create a continuous and stable supply of energy, we shall become the magnet that will attract capital from all parts of the world. We in South Africa have the most desperate need to create new jobs each year. It is common knowledge that at the moment we have to create over 200 000 new jobs per year in South Africa. In 10 year’s time we shall have to create 300 000 and in 20 year’s time 450 000 new jobs per year. We can put all the money we have into education or into housing, but if we want a real investment, we have to create jobs, and without energy there is no possibility of creating new jobs. I believe therefore that this hon. the Minister has one of the most responsible and most demanding portfolios, and I trust that he will see his way clear to giving us some indication as to what his thinking is regarding the three problems I have raised today.

Mr. Chairman, when the oil crisis was unleashed on the world in 1973, it had world-wide political, military and socio-economic repercussions, to say nothing of the tremendous challenges it imposed on research into new sources of energy. We are undoubtedly living in an era of technological miracles. Only last week we were able to watch the American spacecraft Voyager passing the planet Saturn at a distance of 62 000 miles and sending photographs back to earth 1,4 billion miles away which were much clearer than the photographs in my grandmother’s photograph album. This proves that we are living in a world where so many things are possible, but perhaps in a world where so many things are possible, but perhaps in a world of technological miracles where it is difficult to get through to the man in the street and drive home a point. I am asking the hon. the Minister that we again bring home the optimum utilization of our liquid fuel to the public more specifically and prominently.

I read the particularly good report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, submitted to the Minister by the Director General, a good voter of mine, carefully, and I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on it. I believe it is a source of knowledge which many members of the general public can use.

However, I wish to refer specifically to the question of liquid fuel. At present we have 3 570 000 motor vehicles in South Africa and it is estimated that in 18 years’ time we will have 10 million motor vehicles on our roads. The average family car in South Africa uses 1 260 litres of fuel per year; in Europe the figure is 1 400 litres and in the USA, 1 600 litres. What is of great significance is the fact that in South Africa the consumption of fuel per family car in 1973 was 1 310 litres per year; in Europe it was 1 420 litres and in the USA, 1 609 litres. South Africa with its present average consumption of 1 260 litres per family car per year has therefore achieved a considerable saving since 1973, and this has also been the case throughout the entire world. This saving was brought about by various factors. 62% of the total fuel consumption takes place in the greater metropolitan areas. Of course, more services are offered in such areas which leads to increased fuel consumption. However, we should take note of the general picture of fuel consumption in South Africa. The private use of fuel represents 44,1%, in trade and industry 48% is used; in agriculture 4,2% and in the Government sector 3,7%. If we consider the saving brought about in the early ’seventies, we see that the saving in the rural areas was 4,6% and in the urban areas 4,5%, i.e. a total saving of 12,1%. What I should like to say and what I think is very important to the general public is that the speed restriction has a tremendous impact on saving. I wish to point out that if one lowers the speed limit from 90 km per hour to 80 km per hour one effects a saving of 3,8% per month on fuel. But what is even more important is that one then saves 4,3% on foreign exchange. If the speed limit is raised from 90 km per hour to 100 km per hour, there is an increase of 8% in the ftiel consumption and an increase of 10,4% in our exchange expenditure. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that in our campaign to educate the public we are impressing upon them the need for the optimum use of fuel. I do not like to use the word “save”, because fuel is almost like water. One need only use the water which one has sensibly and usefully. In many respects the same applies to energy. We must impress upon our people the idea of optimum utilization, of the very best and most economical utilization of fuel. If every individual in South Africa can achieve a 10% saving in his fuel consumption, we can save R40 million in foreign exchange annually. If the saving is not in the region of R40 million it will be very close to that amount. The point I should like to make is that in our educational programme among our people we must bring it home to them that there is a tremendous task which rests on all of us to save foreign exchange, money which South Africa needs so desperately at this stage of its development to maintain sound economic development.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if a few items cannot be added to the very good programme which he and his department have already initiated. I am thinking of the tremendous fuel wasting problem we have in our cities because traffic lights are not synchronized. I am convinced that if we can succeed in synchronizing traffic lights in our large metropolitan areas we can effect a tremendous saving. There are always new things in the field of technology on the market. There will be motor vehicles on the market in future which will use 25% less fuel simply as a result of certain equipment which is at present being built into proto type vehicles.

During the following decade we shall see many revolutionary things, but in 1981 only one thing is being asked of South Africans and that is: Are we making optimum use of the liquid fuel in this beautiful country of ours? We are being asked whether each one of us is making his or her own contribution towards saving foreign exchange, money we can use to the advantage of the country and all its people. In my opinion, merely telling our people that they must save fuel and drive more slowly and merely trying to prosecute them speeding is not making the point we want to make. We must make our people understand what is involved. There is a large sector of the electorate in South Africa that thinks the Government is being malicious in trying to catch them in speed traps. There are many of our voters who wilfully and erroneously think that the Government is trying to get at the public by means of price increases. I think if we start at the schools and also approach our municipalities, we can be extremely successful. For example I should like to suggest that when people go for their driver’s licence test the licensing authorities should make them undergo a special fuel consumption test. To be able to pass the test a prospective driver will have to know exactly how he as an individual driver can contribute to the maximum utilization of fuel.

We all do unnecessary things. Movement is the heartbeat of the economy. If one impedes the movement of motor vehicles in South Africa by telling people that they may not drive, one is merely inhibiting the economy. However, we can tell one another that unnecessary single trips in our urban complexes to buy a box of matches or a packet of cigarettes—we should not smoke in any case—ought to be eliminated. These trips are a tremendous waste of fuel.

I should like to conclude by telling the hon. the Minister that I believe that he and his department are on the right track with this educational programme of theirs. I wish to thank them for this and ask him to use us, as members of Parliament, to assist them. The fact of the matter is that South Africa, under the guidance of this hon. Minister and other hon. Ministers, has performed miracles in its attempts to become self-sufficient in the field of energy, and I am referring not only to the technological achievements, but also to the research at present being carried out in this country.

We as South Africans owe it to our country to put these achievements to the world in the correct perspective. We must not try to use the energy problem with which our country is grappling for political gain.

In my humble opinion we have all been tremendously successful in achieving self-sufficiency. By the end of this century America wants to manufacture 10% of its liquid fuel from coal, but it will have to erect the equivalent of 20 Sasol 2 plants to be able to do so. This indicates how far ahead South Africa is of the most powerful industrial country in the world. We need only look at present research in West Germany and England on extraiting oil from coal. When we see what they still have to do, we as South Africans can applaud our country’s entrepreneurs, technologists and scientists and those resources with which Providence has blessed this country.

Mr. Chairman, the South African uranium enrichment process has been reported quite prominently in the news, and this afternoon I should like to sketch the general background against which I think uranium enrichment throughout the world should be seen. In the limited time at my disposal I shall only be able to concentrate on certain aspects of the picture, viz. expected technological development in the nuclear field and social, economic and political factors affecting the matter.

I wish to begin with nuclear technological development. After the Second World War a great deal of emphasis was placed—in the so-called “Atoms for Peace Programme”—on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the great powers began, inter alia, to design and to build nuclear energy reactors to generate electricity. From the very outset three types of reactors were envisaged: First thermal reactors, then fast-breeder reactors and finally fusion reactors, in order of technological complexity. The thermal reactors developed, and at present in general use—and the Koeberg reactor is a good example of this—generally use enriched uranium as fuel. For this reason a need arose for uranium enrichment to produce fuel for these reactors.

The second type of reactor is the so-called quick-breeder reactor at present being developed. A feature of this type of reactor is that it utilizes natural uranium as fuel and does so 50 to 60 times more effectively.

Many technological problems still have to be ironed out before the fast-breeder reactor can be used commercially and it is generally expected that the time horizon for its use will more or less coincide with the end of the century.

The third phase in the development of nuclear energy, which has been foreseen from the very beginning, will be entered when the long-cherished ideal of nuclear fusion can be demonstrated in practice. Nuclear fusion affords the only known potentially inexhaustible source of electric energy for the future generation. But the cost of research and development is expected to be extremely high. According to the present plans, it may only be possible to utilize fusion reactors commercially by the year 2030, in other words in about fifty years’ time.

I have tried to give hon. members a glimpse of the future expected development in the field of nuclear energy. Uranium enrichment, as I have said, is only applicable to thermal reactors, and the last of these reactors will possibly be built by the beginning of the next century. Because the economic life of a uranium enrichment plant is exactly the same as that of a thermal reactor, this means that the last uranium enrichment plant will also be built by the beginning of the next century. This means that the period within which research and development in the field of uranium enrichment has to be completed is approximately the next 30 years.

Social factors have affected the development of nuclear energy tremendously. Until approximately 1974 tremendous optimism about the future of nuclear energy prevailed and massive building programmes were envisaged. Since then, however, we have been going through a period characterized by an upsurge of irrational resistance to nuclear energy in the Western world. The irreconcilable nature of the arguments of the pro-and anti-nuclear energy groups has contributed greatly to the nuclear energy programme being so seriously delayed, that by 1985 only an estimated half of the nuclear potential envisaged in 1974 will have been realized.

During the past decade the sharp increase in the price of crude oil has made the energy picture even more confused and Governments have become thoroughly aware of the extent to which they are dependent on imported crude oil.

It is difficult to say how long it will be before the desire for national independence in the field of energy and the acceptance of nuclear energy as the only known source of electric energy in the long term will bring the common man in the Western countries to his senses. The fact that the man in the street has little influence on Government decisions in countries with a centrally controlled economy, is perhaps the reason why the communist countries seem to be carrying on unceasingly with their nuclear energy programmes. In the Free World France and Japan are engaged in imaginative nuclear energy projects, while encouraging sounds are also being heard in Britain and West Germany.

I should also like to say a few words about economic factors which influence uranium enrichment. It is partly for historic reasons that the USA has until recently been the only supplier of enriched uranium. The USA was able to offer enrichment at an uneconomic price for a very long time. There were several reasons why the USA Department of Energy could offer uranium enrichment at a lower price than other countries. They were more or less the following: At post-war prices this USA complex cost approximately 2,4 billion dollars, but that amount was largely written off against depreciation; in addition, the USA Department of Energy does not pay tax, it does not make a profit, it does not carry insurance and it has the advantage of very low Government interest rates.

The year 1960 was more or less a watershed year in the field of uranium enrichment, because in that year and in subsequent years a number of countries began their own research programmes in the field of uranium enrichment. It takes about 20 years from the time one begins such a research process in the laboratory for one to go through all the stages of pilot plants and demonstrations and reach the point where one can utilize the process commercially. For this reason we are going to find in the ’eighties that many countries will enter the commercial enrichment market. But it is really difficult to ascertain whether any of the countries entering the market have a process which gives them an economic advantage over the American gaseous fusion process, if the basis of comparison is the same. Today the ability to enrich uranium at a certain price is by no means the only criterion by which the viability of such a process has to be judged.

In conclusion I wish to express a few ideas on the political factors which affect uranium enrichment. We all know that international nuclear politics arose with the explosion of the two atom bombs in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War. Today it has many facets. A very important facet is that countries co-operate to oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons, while they themselves strive for the supposed security which the possession of such weapons entails. Nowadays a crusade is being conducted by means of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which countries have to sign, and in terms of which they then undertake not to develop nuclear explosive devices and to open their facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. As punishment for refusing to sign the treaty, an embargo is placed on the supply of equipment which can be used in a national nuclear programme. No matter how commendable the humanistic basis of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty may be, it has probably led to countries seeing in it a threat to their national sovereignty. For this reason they have begun to concentrate on developing their own national nuclear industries to the full, in other words nuclear industries in which the nuclear fuel cycle is completely developed.

Mr. Chairman, I should to some extent like to follow up on what the hon. member for Pretoria East had to say on the subject of nuclear energy. As the PFP spokesman on energy matters in the Western Cape, I should like to raise certain matters which I believe to be of public importance and which involve the Koeberg nuclear power-station. Before I make these points, however, I should like to make it clear that I am certainly not what some people call “an anti-nuke-freak”.

You could have fooled us.

At this stage I regard nuclear power as one of the legitimate energy options of the modem world, provided it is managed and controlled with the necessary degree of informed safety-consciousness. In the specific case of Koeberg, however, I have a number of important reservations which I believe must be cleared up by the Government before Koeberg can receive the unreserved blessing of this side of the House. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight we can say that the energy requirements of the Western Cape would have been better served if the vast investment in Koeberg had been directed elsewhere, perhaps towards solar energy generation, and/or wind energy generation, coupled to pumped-storage schemes, etc., because such sources are unlimited and pose no environmental threat. That is, however, water under the bridge and we need say no more about it at this stage.

I should like to address myself to the crisp issue that we now have a 922 megawatt nuclear power-station nearing completion uncomfortably close to Cape Town and due to be commissioned by the end of 1982. There are a number of important questions which require answers from the Government. I have identified six questions which I think need answers.

The first one is: How can the Atomic Energy Board, as a single body, successfully fulfil the two conflicting functions of, on the one hand, the promotion of nuclear energy and, on the other hand, the effective monitoring of the safety of nuclear power? This is not a reflection on the integrity or the expertise of the officials of the department concerned in any way whatsoever. I should like to make that clear. It is just that it is always difficult to wear two conflicting hats. It is, in fact, a matter of principle. In a case where the stakes are unthinkably high there must be no possibility, in the public mind, of an accusation that “the fox is being asked to guard the henhouse”.

The second question is: What exactly is going to happen to the waste-products which Koeberg will produce? Waste-products such as plutonium, strontium 90 and caesium 137 are deadly poisonous and need to be isolated from all organic life for hundreds of years. Therefore the public is entitled to know exactly what is going to happen to the wastes from Koeberg.

Thirdly, I should like to know what the risks to the Cape metropolitan complex are, and I ask this in the light of the recently published meteorological research into nuclear activity which indicates that the wind regimes and patterns around the Western Cape would successfully cause radiation, released from Koeberg in the case of an accident, to boomerang back on the Cape from the Atlantic.

I do not think the hon. the Minister or the department has commented on that, and I think it is a matter that the public is concerned about.

Fourthly I should like to know what has caused the reported cracks in the structure of Koeberg, what the potential consequences of these cracks are in the long term, and what is being done about it.

The fifth question is: What effective emergency planning has been done to minimize the consequences of a release of radiation if, heaven forbid, it should ever occur? This is an important question because the difference between a breakdown in a coal power station and a breakdown in a nuclear power station is that the one is an inconvenience and the other a catastrophe.

The sixth question is whether the Government has firmly assured itself of a reliable and continuous supply of the nuclear fuel that is necessary to power this station. In view of the fact that we are dependent upon the goodwill of our nuclear fuel suppliers in a world which is suspicious of our nuclear bona fides, can the Government give the public the assurance that it has not paid vast sums of money to build a station from our precious capital which is going to be a white elephant?

In view of these disturbing questions, Mr. Chairman, I want to call upon the hon. the Minister to appoint an independent, regional watchdog authority in regard to nuclear power in this area—I am referring specifically to Koeberg. Such a body should be comprised of experts appointed by the three universities in the area and by the local authorities of the Western Cape. Such a body would enjoy the confidence of the local population in this area. It could serve as a monitor of the public interest; it could serve as a channel by means of which the public can voice its fears, its queries and its concerns to the relevant authorities in the proper way instead of having outbursts in the Press from time to time; and it would be a method of evaluating objectively the fears that are expressed on the one hand and the assurances that are forthcoming from the nuclear energy authorities on the other hand. If some of the answers to the public’s questions are classified or highly sensitive, so be it. Such a body could be given such classified answers and treat them in the proper way without compromising the State if the State may be compromised by the release of such information.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe such a body is necessary and it will help to bring about some calm and rationality to the Koeberg debate in the interests of both the Government and the public.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow after the hon. member for Constantia, because I also found it interesting to listen to his argument in connection with the Koeberg power station. If the hon. member for Constantia, who lives in this area—which is also the seat of the House of Assembly—is so unsure about the detrimental effect of the Koeberg power station, then I think it is his duty to propose in this House that the seat of the House of Assembly be moved elsewhere in this country. [Interjections.] In any event, in the short while that I have been here, I have come to perceive that one should not take the complaints of the gentlemen on the other side too seriously. One wonders whether they are always so convinced about the objections that they raise to projects that are being tackled by the Government.

What happened in America?

Many things happened in America and many things will yet happen there. Many plane crashes have also occurred there, and according to that hon. member’s argument, in that case one should not travel on a plane. The department for which the hon. the Minister is responsible can rightly be described as the department whose function it is to keep its finger on the pulse of the source of power of this country. It is true that this source of energy, which is very important and which has already been emphasized in this debate is in fact very important, but the energy source with regard to the economic activity of this country is very important too. I have listened to previous speeches by hon. members in which reference was made to Escom and to its important, mighty task. Some hon. members asked for an understanding of the difficult task that Escom has and they issued a warning against unnecessary criticism of the organization. Other hon. members did in fact express criticism, but I do not want to elaborate on that. All I want to say, is that I trust that the hon. the Minister and his department are in fact aware of the special task that Escom has because, as far as the generation of energy is concerned, Escom can probably be considered as the body that has to provide the life-blood for the industries and the commercial world in South Africa.

It is true that in the past many towns generated power for their own consumption themselves, but gradually circumstances have changed and Escom has become the great provider of electrical power. I have no objection to this; indeed, I think it is a healthy development. However, the fact remains that in the process, the responsibilities and duties of Escom have increased tremendously. That is why I feel that the future of this organization must be viewed in a very serious light due to the importance of electricity for our country.

I want to refer briefly to the mining industry. Various hon. members have already referred to it. It is probably one of the largest bulwarks of the South African economy and consequently it is a key industry. The task of this industry is to develop the minerals and the wealth that has been hidden in the earth for us. However, I want to refer in particular to the people who are involved in the industry and keep it in motion. They are definitely a very important factor and deserve attention.

In particular, I want to emphasize the welfare of the people involved in the mining industry. Other hon. members have already emphasized this aspect and I should like to associate myself with them.

The machinery that has been created for the mine-workers, i.e. their trade unions—I am limiting my attention to them—can look after their welfare, in the industry too. That is why it is so essential for those who are dealing with these matters, the leaders in particular, to act in a balanced, purposeful fashion. However, I must point out that to a certain extent an alarming phenomenon is developing in the trade union concerned, because its leaders are becoming increasingly involved in the party-political arena. I think one can rightfully allege that their approach to matters is sometimes dominated by their personal political ambition. I do not want to question this and deny them the right to participate in party-politics, or even belong to a party, but I think some degree of balance should be maintained. Quite by chance, it is also true that the party with which they are associated, actually makes it its business to represent every step and every action by the Government in a suspect way. I want to allege that it is not in the interest of the workers when their leaders attach greater value to their personal party-political ambitions than to the interests of their workers. In the nature of things, they must surely know that it is their most important task to promote the interests of the workers. Mention has already been made here of important matters for which they can campaign, such as better pension benefits for their members.

Over the years I have noticed—one can go so far as to call this pathetic behaviour—that after someone has retired, he tries to have himself certified as suffering from one of the occupational diseases, in an attempt to negotiate a better income. I feel that this would not be necessary if the pension benefits of those people could be improved. It is important that the trade union leaders should adopt an objective line of action and that their first concern should be the welfare of their people. Nor should they allow the interests of those workers to develop into a political football. I have no personal action whatsoever against these leaders, but since many of the voters concerned in our constituencies are attached to the mines, I feel that it is our duty too to look after their interests. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting to hear the pleas of hon. members opposite that politics should not be dragged into the discussion of labour matters; whereas the history of the NP demonstrates that it has always sought political support among certain unions.

I am talking about labour leaders.

Perhaps this is a sign of how things are changing in South Africa.

†I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his promotion to the Cabinet, since when I left this House in 1977 he was still a backbencher. He has been promoted rapidly since then. Therefore I should like to congratulate him. It has also been a pleasure to read this first annual report of the new Ministry, because when I was here previously as a member of the official Opposition of that time, the former hon. member for Constantia and I made a point of pleading for a Ministry of Energy Affairs. As they say, one does in fact rule from the Opposition benches even if it takes seven years for things to come about. [Interjections.] I believe it is in South Africa’s interests that we do have this Ministry now, and I believe it is going to go well. I am sure, however, that the hon. the Minister is going to do his best to make it go that way.

See what you would be able to achieve if you were to act constructively.

We are fortunate in South Africa in that we have huge supplies of relatively cheap coal, and Escom uses nearly 60% of our domestic coal supplies in producing some of the cheapest electricity in the world. I believe we should acknowledge the good job Escom is doing in this respect.

Natal has suffered owing to a number of power interruptions this winter, politely referred to as power shedding. West Street, in Durban, has on occasion been in darkness. Parts of Pietermaritzburg have had supplies cut without warning, and some industries have suffered expensive losses as a result of these sudden power cuts. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is going to be the pattern in future.

More particularly, will the hon. the Minister tell us if industries have been and will be compensated for losses arising from power cuts? I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the situation is at the Matla Power Station, where there has been a very serious accident involving, we gather, millions upon millions of rand, and we should also like to know who is paying for the damage and for the reconstruction, and what is the estimate of the costs involved.

In December 1978 the Board of Trade Inquiry into Escom’s Tariff Structure Policy completed its investigation. The hon. member for Durban-North seems to suggest that that Board of Trade Inquiry was the major cause for Escom’s being unable to supply sufficient electricity at the moment. I should like to point out, however, that the Board of Inquiry was only appointed in 1977. So it could not really have affected Escom’s policy of 1976. That means that one must not always believe everything one is told. Arising from that inquiry, however, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the National Productivity Institute instituted a full investigation, as was recommended by that commission, amongst its many other recommendations. Also, has a capital project evaluation group been established within the Ministry of Finance, which was also something that was asked for? Has the membership of the Electricity Control Board also been re-organized and does it now have the assistance of professional staff, which was another important request?

It is important that our power-stations are secure and, as far as possible, protected from sabotage and attack. This applies to the national grid as well. Incidents at Amot and at the Durban Corporation’s Lamontville sub-station have highlighted this. Clearly a proper force of trained security men is needed at each power station. My information is that at the Drakensberg pumped-storage scheme, which is soon going to be called the Drakensberg power-station, there are problems about getting permission from the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development for the building of a village near the power station to accommodate approximately 90 married Black Escom staff who do cleaning, clerical and security work. The objection is apparently that the village would be in a White area. I believe that our energy supplies and the contented family life of the men on whom the protection of these supplies depends can surely not be sacrificed for the rigid and racist policies of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. If we have a national security plan and strategic planning, this hon. Minister’s department should take priority over that sort of nonsense that is stopping one of our important power stations from functioning efficiently.

Furthermore, like most other parts of South Africa, Escom is extremely short of graduates, artisans and skilled staff. In this regard I should like to support the plea from the hon. member for Durban North—but not necessarily specifically with regard to Indians—in asking what Escom’s policy is on the training of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, particularly with regard to apprenticeships for them. Are any of them, in effect, being apprenticed at present?

No electricity cuts would, in fact, have been necessary this winter if Cabora Bassa’s electricity had not been interrupted by sabotage of the pylons bringing the power to South Africa. The so-called Mozambique Resistance Movement was allegedly responsible for the sabotage, and they are also allegedly assisted by persons and funds from South Africa. This was apparently confirmed when, during the outcry over the electricity cuts over the last three months, this resistance movement suddenly issued a statement saying that it would not in future attack the Cabora Bassa transmission lines. There is clearly some incompetent ass in the Department of Defence, or in the National Intelligence Service, who does not seem to realize that cuts to South Africa’s electricity supply are far more serious for national security than a kind of modem cowboys and Indians in the African bush. I trust that the hon. the Minister will, if possible, stress that point to whomever in his Government may be responsible for this situation.

I should like to welcome the hon. the Minister’s statement on tariff structures. I am sure that the Electricity Control Board will comply with his statement, although I had noted that he was careful to say that the Electricity Control Board still has to approve these cuts for rural consumers.

Finally, I would like to stress that there is no “energiebeleidsformulering” in regard to our rural areas, and particularly our Black mral areas in South Africa. The hon. the Minister asked the hon. member for Grey-town what he should do about it. In this country we have a new institute called the Institute for Natural Resources at the University of Natal, and I would commend the hon. the Minister, and particularly his policy committee on energy affairs, to consult with that institute. It is doing important work, and it is a real problem in our rural areas that our timber, bush and even our grass is having to be used as fuel to keep people warm and to cook their food. I especially ask the hon. the Minister to take note of the findings of the Institute for Natural Resources on the Pietermaritzburg campus of the University of Natal, because I believe it has a vital role to play in a better South Africa for all of us.

Mr. Chairman, so many people outside are inclined to consider the mine-worker far beneath them, but they do not take the fact into account that the approximately 743 000 mine-workers crawl around in the bowels of the earth and put South Africa on the way to being one of the economic giants in the world. Nor do they realize that those people are exposed to the greatest of danger whilst they carry out their daily task. Nor do they take into account the fact that those men contribute towards John Citizen in this country being able to maintain one of the highest standards of living in the world. These men are working under the most dangerous circumstances conceivable. I do not think that anyone who has not yet seen a mining accident, can imagine the conditions that accompany such an accident. I do not want to be melodramatic, but hon. members can imagine what happens when a lift with 31 grown men plunges down a mile into the earth. They can imagine what will happen if that lift containing 31 men reaches a speed of 100 miles per hour and then crashes down into the bowels of the earth so that a lift 14 feet high, made of steel and wood, ultimately becomes a small pile 18 inches high. These are the type of dangers that these men have to face every day. They crawl around in crevices of approximately 35 cm to 40 cm in height.

A great deal is being done in this regard by the mine managements, and I should like to pay tribute to them for this. The International Loss Control Institute, which is active in our country too now, has done a great deal to eliminate dangers and to make mine managements intensely aware of the dangers that do exist. I must also admit at once that the department and the hon. the Minister have done a great deal to ensure safety in our mines. I know that those officials who are working under difficult conditions, are literally wearing out the thresholds of mine managements which are not concerned about safety.

However, I feel there is another facet that we are overlooking, and this is that we are not doing enough to make the mine-worker himself more aware of safety in his place of work. Today I want to ask that we should amend the legislation which makes provision for fines for employees who transgress, and that we should increase the fines. I am not asking this on behalf of the man who endangers his own life, that it is own choice, but we must take action against the man who is careless about the lives of his comrades. These people must be clamped down on, and be clamped down on much more strictly than is the case at present. The fines that can be imposed at present do not serve as a deterrent. We must extract larger fines from these people. I know a mine-worker does not like to reach deep into his pocket, but in this case we may do well to consider it.

I want to refer to another facet with regard to the protection of mine-workers, viz. the security aspect of the mining industry. In many mines today, anyone of us can walk up to the shaft and cause a large piece of machinery to fall down the shaft, and hon. members can imagine what will happen in such a case if the lift is in motion and filled with people.

A second aspect which we shall have to look at more closely, is the control over explosives in the mines. There are in fact registers that attempt to control the issue of explosives, but from practical experience we have learned that a great deal of those explosives in the industry simply grow wings. Hon. members can give their imagination free rein and think what will happen if those explosives were to fall into the wrong hands.

Finally, I should like to put in a word for a group of men who may not be so well known in the world outside. I am referring to those who are members of proto-teams. If I may perhaps teach the House something today, I should like to explain what a proto-team is.

A proto-team is the group of people who, under very difficult circumstances, have to go down into the mine to extinguish fires and, when an accident has occurred, to remove the victims. Although I have not yet been down a mine when a fire broke out there, I can only describe these circumstances as “hellish”. Those people have to extinguish fires. Often it is also very unpleasant to remove those that have been killed down there. Those people are literally taking their lives in their hands every moment that they spend there under those conditions. At this stage they are simply receiving a token, a small remuneration for doing this. I want to ask that the department should recommend to the Chamber of Mines that the grants which these people receive as members of proto-teams should be drastically increased and that the other grants, of which some are not subject to taxation at the moment, should be increased as well. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Finance is here today, because I want to ask him not to tax those grants which members of prototeams receive, when it comes to levying taxation on fringe benefits. We are paying them very little and we are also doing very little in general for them with regard to finance for this very dangerous work that they are doing. Let us not place an additional burden of taxation on that small amount that we are doing, and take a portion of it for the Exchequer. Let us take into account that these people are important not only to the mine managements, that they do not simply work for the mine managements, but that when they go down in order to extinguish those terrible fires, they are also working for us, the State, because the sooner they extinguish those fires, the sooner production can be resumed and the sooner we can put that gold that is so essential to our economy, on the markets abroad once again and earn currency from it. I should like to raise my hat today to the members of the proto-teams and tell them: We are very appreciative of the task that you are carrying out, that vital task in our mining industry.

Mr. Chairman, in these the closing stages of this debate I think one should say that we have had a very constructive debate with good contributions coming from both sides of the House. I should like to thank the hon. members on this side of the House for having conducted the debate in a positive manner and for offering, I believe, constructive criticism and constructive suggestions. This type of debate is good for both the hon. the Minister and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

In the short time remaining to me, I want to talk briefly about petrol. I raised with the hon. the Minister the question of introducing a national tariff for Escom just as we have a national grid. I should now just like to indicate some of the existing variations. The hon. the Minister, when I suggested this, asked me whether I was prepared to accept a national petrol price. Since then we have heard the hon. member for Kuruman on that particular subject and I agree with a tremendous amount of what he said. However, let us look at the differences in the electricity tariffs. If one looks, for instance, at tariff B which is for “Small power consumers”, one finds that the service charge in rand per month can vary from a low of R8,40 to a high of R13,20 and that energy rate No. 1 in cents per kwh can vary from 4,67 cents to 9,22 cents. This is almost double.

This information was supplied to me in an answer by the department to a question I put earlier in the session. These variations are far greater than the variations in petrol prices. If we talk about petrol equalization, we must also realize that, with increased production from Sasol 2 and 3, a large percentage of our petrol and diesel requirements will be produced in the Transvaal. Therefore it will not be necessary to have that same equalization because the coastal areas can import their fuel requirements and the up-country areas will get the bulk of their requirements from the various Sasol plants. One wonders, in the light of this, whether the oil-pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg will not one day become redundant. I hope it does, because if it were to become redundant, it would mean that we were supplying all our up-country petrol requirements from Sasol, and that would be a very good idea. Basically, however, I am quite convinced that if one were to ask the average consumer of electricity and petrol in the coastal areas whether he would be prepared to agree to an equalized petrol price throughout the country in order to obtain an equalized electricity rate, he would definitely answer in the affirmative.

Since we are talking about petrol, let me remind the hon. the Minister that during the censure debate I mentioned the Government take—and the hon. member for Durban North also mentioned it—on a litre of petrol. I quoted the figures as globular amounts on that occasion, but just let me repeat the figures I was given. Sasol gets 17,40 cents and other taxes amount to 9,81 cents, and sales tax to 2,02 cents, therefore giving the Government 29,21 cents on the price of a litre of petrol. In that debate the hon. the Minister interjected by saying that I was incorrect. I then asked him please to give me the correct figures, but we are still waiting for them. I hope therefore that at the end of this debate he will, in fact, enlighten the country by telling us how many cents …

When I wanted to give them to you, you were not in the Chamber. Remember that.

No, I do not remember.

Oh, yes. In that debate I said that I had the figures with me, but you were not here when I wanted to quote them.

Well, I hope the hon. the Minister still has the figures available.

I do still have them.

It is not just for my own information that I am asking for these figures, because I believe that the whole country wants this information, and I believe that the whole country deserves to be informed about what the figures are. So I hope the hon. the Minister still has them with him.

This brings me to the question of differentiated speed limits on our roads in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why a motorist who is going from Cape Town to Johannesburg can travel at 100 km/h, whilst the motorist going from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg has to travel at 100 km/h to Nanaga, at 90 km/h from there to Colesberg and then at 100 km/h again. Similarly the motorist going from East London to Johannesburg has to travel at 90 km/h all the way through to Bloemfontein—if he goes by the most direct route—before he can travel at 100 km/h, even though the roads are every bit as good. For instance, the new road from Stutterheim through to Queenstown is a magnificent road which is in excellent condition. I therefore see absolutely no reason why we should differentiate, on these grounds, between different areas of the country. I believe that we should have one national standard. Whatever that is, of course, is up to the hon. the Minister. I do not think it is for me to tell the hon. the Minister what to do, but I think it should be the same throughout the country. After all, the election is now over. So let us have a national speed limit again.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to commence by thanking all hon. members who participated in the debate. I think we had a reasonably constructive debate, except for the few abortive attempts by the official Opposition to turn mineral and energy affairs into a political issue.

Only where they were actually applicable.

I shall come to that again, for I want to try to reply as briefly as possible to every point which they raised.

Initially I should like to take the opportunity to inform hon. members that the present Government mining engineer, Mr. J. G. Kirchner, is due to retire on pension soon. I should like to take leave of this excellent official on behalf of members of Parliament. His retirement is going to be a great loss to us, for we shall be losing the services of a competent and dedicated mining engineer. Mr. Kirchner will be remembered for his knowledge and skill, but in particular, too, for his wonderful personality and his ability to motivate his staff to obtain the greatest possible co-operation from the private sector in the utilization of our mineral resources. He made a good contribution and we bid him farewell and thank him for what he has done for South Africa over a long period in this important sphere.

I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new chief spokesmen of my own party and of the Opposition parties on their new involvement in this department’s affairs. I think it was correct of them to refer to their predecessors, all of whom had made an exceptional contribution in their own way, particularly in respect of mining affairs. Since we have an entirely new team now, I want to wish them everything of the best and express the hope that we shall conduct constructive debates on mineral and energy affairs in future as well.

In the first place I should like to refer to hon. members on my side of the House and briefly try to say something about each one’s contribution. After that I shall try to give attention to the speeches made by the chief spokesman of the official Opposition, the chief spokesman of the NRP and subsequently the other Opposition speakers.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Namaqualand in particular, the chairman of our study group on this side, on the excellent and logical overall picture he gave us of our achievements to date in respect of mineral and energy affairs as well as of the great challenges facing us. He showed us how everything in the mineral and energy sphere really fits together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Furthermore, he indicated in a fine way how there was movement, development and planning in every sphere and every aspect of that puzzle. I think that with his contribution he has to a large extent already replied to the more general allegations made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

The hon. member for Geduld gave us an analysis of the strategic value of minerals. He was right on target. South Africa’s enemies know how important we are to them. Hence this onslaught on us. It is not always concerned so much with the reasons which are being advanced. This is a nettle which has to be grasped, and however cynically the official Opposition smiles when we refer to it, we must realize that we are the ultimate goal of Russian strategy and that the reason for this is not their concern for political rights, but our mineral wealth and the power it will procure for them in the world.

I actually said that.

The hon. member for Geduld emphasized that South Africa’s traditional trading partners and friends, too, must realize and bear in mind that this is the case. I believe that all of them do in fact know this, but not all of them have the courage or insight to admit it and to formulate their actions and planning accordingly.

The hon. member Dr. Marais was a member of the Electricity Supply Commission for a long time and rendered good services there. He had to retire now and we want to thank him for his period of service as a member of that commission and welcome him here, not only because we like him, but also because of his knowledge and experience of this important Government corporation. I think he gave us a clear outline today of the problems with which Escom is grappling, and through his contribution he enabled hon. members to understand the problems in their true perspective.

The hon. member for Rustenburg focussed the spotlight on minerals as a starting point for the projects requiring co-operation between us and the independent national States. I want to agree with him that there is indeed great potential in this respect. In fact, co-operation between us and our independent Black States had already taken shape in respect of platinum even before the concept of co-prosperity projects as such arose and started to become a general concept in Government planning. Co-operation was achieved in Rustenburg, in the hon. member’s constituency, where one of the largest and richest platinum mines in the world extends across the borders of two independent States. Even if that mine is situated in two countries, it is being administered and, from a production point of view, being exploited as a unit. In accordance with an agreement between the two Governments one fundamental set of rules and regulations is being applied and in addition there is an agreed formula in respect of profit-sharing. Although this was not formalized as a co-prosperity project, we already have a fine example there of how co-prosperity projects can be designed.

The hon. member also referred to manpower. As far as this is concerned, I want to tell him that the appeals which have been made by hon. members on this side of the House for a balanced approach in respect of the manpower situation in mining, are of cardinal importance. I believe that the calm and dignified tone in which hon. members of the NP tried to ensure that the necessary co-operation ensured on the part of employers as well as employees, was exemplary. I hope that it will meet with a response from the employers as well as the employees in the mining industry.

The hon. members for Virginia and Welkom discussed the same subject. I want to endorse strongly their appeals for a sensible and balanced approach on the part of the employer and the employee. I should also like to say that I am beginning to conclude that the spirit of co-operation which prevails between employers’ and employees’ organizations in the mining industry is not altogether satisfactory. I advocate a new initiative in respect of co-operation and call upon the employers to show some understanding in the negotiations which he ahead for the need to safeguard the vested interests of White workers. The Government will not allow the vested interest of the White workers to be undermined in any way by anyone.

In the same breath I also want to say that it is necessary for the employees’ organizations to share in this initiative and for them to take their place at a round-table discussion to negotiate specifically for the preservation of the vested interests of their members. However, I also want to ask them to bear in mind that besides the confirmation of the interests of their own members, it is also essential that the interests of the Republic should be served and that solutions must be found for the problems of the mining industry. Reconciliation must be effected between the preservation of the vested interests of the White mine-worker on the one hand and the necessity of meeting the future manpower needs of the mining industry on the other. A complex time lies ahead for us in this regard. When the sixth report of the Wiehahn Commission is tabled, together with the Government’s White Paper, we shall be able to discuss and debate this in greater detail. I thank the hon. members for their constructive contributions on this crucial matter.

The hon. member for Randfontein advocated that the State should do something about improving the lot of the exmine-worker. As the hon. member knows the Government has the greatest sympathy with the lot of the ex-mine-workers, as well as with the lot of any other group of ex-workers for whom inadequate provision was made during the years when good pension funds were not yet in fashion. However, it would be difficult for the State —as himself rightly observed—to single out one specifically deserving group of workers from a particular category and to act in isolation there, while there are other deserving groups that have the same problems with pensions. That is why the State’s contribution to the alleviation of the lot of these people is geared to a non-differentiated basis in order to render assistance to everyone according to a fair means test. Having said that, however, I hasten to add that I do not see this as the only role the State has to play in this regard. I want to agree with him that the pensions on which most mining-workers who are on pension at present have to manage, are a disgrace to the mining industry. I think the State must bring every ounce of the influence it has to bear in order to persuade the employers’ and employees’ organizations that are negotiating on this matter to come forward with a new initiative in this sphere as well. In future we shall have to see whether mere persuasion is enough or whether the State should not perhaps adopt a stern attitude to ensure that proper pension benefits and a properly constituted pension arrangement is established in this crucial industry.

The hon. member for Kuruman advocated a uniform petrol price. He said that he wanted to pay the same in his part of the world, in Kuruman, as here in the Cape or in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Well, in a lighter vein I want to tell him that if we can arrange for a uniform price of biltong in Kuruman and Cape Town and Pretoria, we might be able to consider that matter as well! [Interjections.]

The hon. member advanced sound arguments, arguments which certainly carried weight in support of what he was asking for. I could probably advance other arguments as well which are just as valid as to why there should be a differentiated price. The fundamental argument is that when you render service or sell a commodity, you get crosssubsidization if you apply absolute uniformity of prices. In that case you distort the economy to a certain extent and expose yourself to the possibility of rendering uneconomic services in a certain place and having them paid for by others.

Commerce and industry do it all the time.

So does the State.

I am convinced that in some way or other we shall have to consider rationalization in future, as in the case of electricity tariffs. However, I want to make it clear that I believe that any change in this regard must be evolutionary, for we must realize that it could be disruptive to take sudden drastic steps in this direction. They must be realistic and must not clash with other aims. If I have to make the fuel price uniform, something which will become even more of a burning issue when Sasol 2 and 3 come on line, I have to reduce the price drastically in places which are already overconcentrated. Consequently we must examine decentralization aims as well when we assess this problem. Moreover, I believe that we cannot single out one commodity only, that we must not say that we should consider electricity tariffs only or fuel prices only. There are a large number of commodities in respect of which differentiated prices are being paid and I believe that the Government will have to co-ordinate from the centre in order to bring this whole issue into line with and to reconcile it with our objective in respect of a whole number of economic priorities. I want to give the assurance that we shall most definitely have to look into this matter.

This is at the same time my reply to hon. members who discussed electricity tariffs. Pooling has already taken place to a certain extent at Escom. I believe that we shall ultimately move forward to a single tariff structure as electricity consumption in this country builds up, as the network becomes absolutely established in sparsely populated areas as well and as we achieve our objective of supplying electricity to everyone. However, the question we are faced with—it requires intensive investigation as I have indicated on the basis of the fuel price—is whether we must expedite that process artificially. I do not believe that we can take such a decision before an intensive investigation has been instituted. I want to give the assurance that the question of greater uniformity and the issues surrounding the differentiation in electricity tariffs are a top priority to which my department and other bodies are giving thorough going attention.

The hon. member for Kimberley South spoke affectionately of the diggers and their interests. I agree with him that reconciliation must be effected between the interests of the farmer and those of the digger. This is a difficult matter, for when somebody digs up your land and your car falls into the hole from which he has dug diamonds, then he and you are not exactly fond of one another. However, we are constantly trying to reconcile these interests to the greatest possible extent.

I must point out that this is to a certain extent a passing problem, for new methods of exploitation are causing work to take place on such a large scale that the problem has assumed completely different proportions. These days it is more a case of arrangements having to be made in advance before the owner’s land is disturbed. Yet we have inherited a large number of problems in this regard which are rather difficult to obviate.

The hon. member put forward interesting views on diamond exploitation along the West coast. I took cognizance of them and I want to remind him that the Government will not decide alone, but that an advisory committee has been appointed under the chairmanship of a judge. Consequently we shall receive absolutely objective advice in this regard.

The hon. member also referred to expertise something which is very important. If I had to refer to the example he pointed out, I would recommend that when the person in question does not have the expertise himself, he must mention in his application how and where he is able to obtain it. He must also furnish proof that he does have access to such expertise.

The hon. member also referred to the question as to whether or not these rights would be granted to Coloureds. I want to give him the assurance that there is no discrimination whatsoever on the basis of colour when applications are considered; neither to the one side nor to the other. Consequently I can give him the assurance that no Coloured will be refused simply because he is a Coloured, but also that no Coloured will be granted a concession simply because he is a Coloured. He will have to compete on merit.

He, as well as the hon. member for Namaqualand, referred to the diamond-cutting situation. In this regard I could just point out that one must of course be careful not to create diamond-cutting capacity which outstrips the demand for cut diamonds. Here we must take the interests of the diamond-cutters into account, and we cannot allow excess capacity.

However, I want to give the two hon. members the assurance that we are constantly keeping an eye on the needs in this regard. Since we have been adopting a particular policy for a number of years now, I also asked for a rather more intensive examination to establish precisely what the present situation is. When I say this I do not want to create any expectations at all in anyone, but I do want to say that we are at present scrutinizing this matter.

The hon. member for Innesdal made a strong appeal for an intensive educational campaign. I think he put his finger on a difficult problem we have in this regard in respect of fuel saving: How does one convey to people that you, by inconveniencing yourself somewhat, have to save foreign exchange and consequently make a contribution towards the security of South Africa? This is a great challenge. It is a challenge to associate the whole intricate question of the balance of foreign exchange with how much fuel a person puts in his motor-car or when he drives his motor-car to the café unnecessarily to go and buy a packet of cigarettes. However, we must succeed in doing this, for an astronomical amount of money can be saved if every individual consumer can succeed in saving only 10% of his consumption of liquid fuel. Those astronomical amounts —and the hon. the Minister of Finance will confirm this—are of cardinal importance to the economy of this country, to the economic stability of this country.

However, there is another reason why our people must save fuel, viz. that it is in their own interests to save fuel. One’s own interests and the national interest coincide completely in this respect. Good driving habits are going to benefit everyone, for energy has become expensive. This applies to energy saving in general as well—electricity, or whatever form of energy is being discussed. I am gratified to see that there is enthusiasm for the modest effort which we have initiated with the series of placards to promote an awareness of the need to save. I trust that we shall be able to take this further, and that this small pilot flame we have ignited will be the spark which will inspire our people to real thrift, which is in both their own interests and in the interests of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pretoria East, as an expert in atomic energy and uranium enrichment, made a valuable and stimulating contribution. We are gratified that we have his expertise at our disposal in this House. It was a stimulating contribution and we express our sincere gratitude to him for that.

The hon. member for Stilfontein put forward interesting suggestions. I want to give him the assurance that his suggestions in connection with higher fines in the case of reckless people, as well as in connection with more effective security measures, will be considered when the Mines and Works Act, and the regulations in connection with it, are revised. We are rationalizing to some extent, and we shall definitely take his proposals into consideration. I want to point out, in regard to the payment of higher allowances to proto-teams that it is, of course, a condition of service which has to be considered by the Chamber of Mines. I trust that the hon. member’s appeal in this regard will be given thorough consideration.

Having said that, I want to express my sincere gratitude to hon. members on Government side who, in a fine and constructive way, focussed the spotlight on a wide front and scrutinized this cardinally important sphere of our economy. They really made sound contributions.

This now brings me to the chief spokesman of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who put a wide series of questions to me during his two speeches and adopted certain standpoints. Let me start with the final point of his second speech.

†That is the question of differentiated speedlimits. When we investigated the matter of giving some degree of alleviation for motorists in respect of the 90 km/h speedlimit, we were faced with the situation that to raise the speedlimit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h on all roads, would be too big a step to take at once, for the simple reason that that could result in a substantial percentage increase in petrol and diesel consumption. On the other hand, however, we did have the freedom of movement to allow the motorists some benefit. I should like to ask the hon. member the following question: For the sake of maintaining a uniform speedlimit throughout, should we have left it at 90 km/h, or should we have granted motorists the limited advantage which we were able to do?

In terms of the total road mileage in South Africa, we decided that we could accommodate motorists by raising the speedlimit on certain roads.

*When we had to make that choice, we sought for a logical, non-confusing dividing line. The obvious solution was to allow the choice to fall on that network of roads which had already been identified as N roads. Those roads already have the necessary road signs. Consequently we need not spend millions of rands on the erection of special speed limit signs. The roads in question are easily identifiable and are indicated on maps as N routes. We were therefore able to make this concession on a practical basis. Those roads on which we allowed this, afford virtually every motorist, not necessarily every day, but on a relatively regular basis, an opportunity to drive at a 100 km/h when he has to cover long distances. Surely all of us, at one stage or another, drive from one large city to another, which are connected by the N roads. If hon. members consider where the freeways, which are also roads on which one can drive at a 100 km/h, are situated, they will see that they are situated in the points of greatest concentration of our population. Consequently we believe that we have, in a fair way here, passed on a limited advantage to the public. Is the hon. member asking for a general increase to a speed limit of 100 km/h or is he asking for a general reduction to 90 km/h?

I am pleading simply for one national speed limit. If you want a figure I would say 100 km/h.

There are other hon. members who say 110 km/h. In determining speed limits we allow ourselves to be guided by two objectives. Firstly we do not wish to impose an unnecessary limit on the public.

We are not intent on restricting the public unnecessarily and in that way curbing their productivity or irritating them. On the other hand, we must allow ourselves to be guided by our supply situation, which at present is not bad, and also by our exchange situation and our economizing target. Safety is also a factor, and there I allow myself to be guided by advice from people in charge of this aspect. In future decisions we shall always try to reconcile these two objectives. If a change is possible, upwards or downwards, we shall consider it.

The hon. member also asked: What about the facilities at Richards Bay, which were established by the private sector, and how are these affected by the increased export allocation of coal which I announced? Those facilities were of course planned for the 44 million tons that have already been allocated, and therefore the new allocation does not really have anything to do with it.

Can they handle anything additional?

In order to do that, basically new facilities will have to be built. To the extent to which the increased exports may have an effect on or are able to be directly brought into fine with the existing facilities, I can assure hon. members that the interested parties, those whose interests may be affected by this, will be properly consulted and an agreement will be reached with them as to how, if it should appear to be necessary, an integration of the two categories of exports can take place. However, that does not mean to say that this will necessarily happen. The Railways is still in the negotiating and planning stage of what infrastructure should be established where, and the hon. member may rest assured that we will cause our planning to evolve with due regard to the vested interests at Richards Bay.

†The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Bryanston, referred to the necessity of beneficiation. I immediately want to say that the Government is obviously as anxious as anybody else to ensure maximum beneficiation, within the limits laid down by availability of capital and manpower. Those are limiting factors, and beneficiation, as any other new scheme, must be planned within the framework of those limitations. I must also add, however, that beneficiation as such does not fall under the purview of this department. I would suggest that the hon. members raise this issue again when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism comes up for discussion.

I want to make the point, however, that there is nothing to prevent private enterprise to beneficiate. The Government does not mind them doing it. We merely fulfil the role of overseer. We co-ordinate and make regulations to ensure safety and orderly conduct. At this point in time there is nothing to prevent any mining company or any other company to take upon itself further beneficiation. As a matter of fact, there are, depending upon certain circumstances, various schemes which have as their aim the stimulation of this type of development. Should someone wish to beneficiate in an area where decentralization rewards are considered, he can do so and in the process also get State assistance. I want therefore to ask hon. members why they want the State to become involved in beneficiation. How do they want the State to become involved? I ask this question because we are in agreement on this one point, and that is that the State should limit interference in the economy to the minimum.

The State should encourage them with incentives.

Why must the State always encourage? Hon. members opposite criticize us for interfering with the economy, and in the next breath they come forward with grandiose schemes in which they suggest that the State should become even further involved and interfere even more in private enterprise.

Furthermore, the hon. member made a statement for which I want to take him to task. He said that the policies we follow in this country made it difficult for any Government to support South Africa and then to be re-elected in its own country. He also said that while South Africa carried on with its policies, it would not be able to obtain enriched uranium.

No, I did not say that.

Well, he said there was a risk that we would not get it.

That is right.

We can have a look at the hon. member’s Hansard in that regard.

I have it right here.

In the first place I want to point out that I informed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a confidential basis that the entire question of Koeberg and of enriched uranium was at this juncture in a sensitive stage of negotiation and consequently I could not discuss it further in this debate today. However, I also asked the hon. the Leader to inform his main speaker about this, and against this background, i.e. the trouble I took to furnish the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with this information, I think it would have been better if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had said nothing at all on this subject. [Interjections.]

But let me come to the hon. member’s allegation that as long as the Government implements its policy, other countries cannot really support us. In the sphere of mineral and energy affairs the only priority as far as other countries are concerned is that they want a stable Government in South Africa so that they can be assured of access to our mineral resources. If the hon. member were to read the Santini Report, he would see what an American Congress Committee has to say about the mineral stability of African countries where there is Black majority rule.

Has he read that report?

Then he will see that politicians of other countries consider South Africa to be a stable and reliable friend of and supplier of minerals to the West. I believe that any patriotic citizen of South Africa should convey that message at every opportunity. If a person is vested with the status of main speaker of the official Opposition on a subject such as mineral and energy affairs, he ought to convey a positive message and he ought not to make a mess on his own doorstep. [Interjections.]

I want to pose this question, Sir, but I will not be able to debate it because you will rule me out of order: If an open society were to develop in South Africa which would result in Black majority rule, can the hon. member advance arguments as to why the production of our minerals will not go the same way as it did in Nigeria and Zambia? Just mention one example.

Now you are getting feeble.

Now you are playing politics.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says: “Now you are playing politics.” He admits that he said that the policies of this Government made it difficult for any Government to support us and be re-elected.

That is a statement of fact.

The hon. member makes that statement while Dr. Chester Crocker and the Secretary of State of the USA cast a vote, against the insistence of many others, to accord recognition to the fact that the stability of the mineral supply from South Africa, is of crucial importance in global politics and also for the stability of the entire free world.

†I want to refer to the hon. member’s plea for “alternative sources”. He said: “We are spending too much on finite sources and too little on infinite sources.” We obviously concentrate on those areas where we have abundant resources and where products may be denied to us. In this regard I want to tell the hon. member that his evaluation as to the capability of alternative sources of energy to substitute for coal, oil and uranium, is somewhat over-optimistic. Energy experts across the world say that alternatives now being developed—and these are very important and should get a lot of attention—may hopefully bring long-term solutions on an economical basis. For the next 30 years, however, the whole world will basically be running on coal, oil and atomic power. I am not just referring to experts who suit my argument. I am quoting resolutions and findings of the World Energy Conference at Munich. Therefore, in our priorities we should attach proper weight to each one.

I have already replied to the question of a national price for electricity. The hon. member raised the point that capital should not be raised from revenue by Escom. This is a wide subject, and for the purposes of today’s debate I want to restrict myself to saying that Escom is the biggest borrower South Africa has in the capital market. With its tremendous expansion, breath-taking amounts are being used, and a proper percentage of it comes from loans. In this regard one must remember that the banks which grant loans to institutions like Escom insist on a specific percentage of development being paid for from Escom’s own capital. So there has to be a balance between own capital and borrowed capital. We simply cannot borrow all the capital and not create self-generated capital. This ought to satisfy the hon. member. As a matter of fact, the balance that is required by financial institutions is about 50:50.

*In spite of this, Escom tries to keep that portion of its tariff which is intended for capital provision, as low as possible. This year it is 5½%, and an attempt is being made to keep it at 5% next year.

The hon. member also alleged that Escom is refusing to accept the power which Maclear is prepared to generate. I made inquiries, and my information at this stage is that the offer of a hydro-electric power station was withdrawn by Maclear itself because they realized that they did not have an adequate water supply. [Interjections.] These are the facts, and the hon. member is welcome to try to dispute them.

I think I have now given sufficient attention to that hon. member. I should now like to come to the hon. member for Durban North. He had a great deal to say about the petrol price. It is a basic error of judgment, which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also makes, to allege that all levies which are added to the basic price of petrol are a form of taxation and that that money goes to the State as such. The Equalization Fund levy is not a tax. That money does not end up in the Exchequer in any way. It is a fund introduced and operated specially for the benefit and safety of the motorist. If the levy, against all expectations, ever were to become unnecessary, it would fall away, because it is intended for specific purposes.

I should like to tell hon. members how the present petrol price at the coast is, in general, made up. The basic price includes what one can call the wholesale price—the landed cost, the profit margin of the wholesaler and the manufacturer—and this in round figures is 30 cents per litre. The Equalization Fund levy is 10,5 cents per litre. The portion for customs and excise is 10,35 cents per litre. Then, too, there is the GST, which is 2,2 cents per litre. The retail profit margin is a further 3,55 cents per litre, and that gives a price of 56,6 cents per litre. Of this total amount only the GST goes to the Exchequer, plus a portion of the amount for customs and excise. The remainder of the amount for customs and excise and the Equalization Fund portion are allocated for specific purposes.

I should like to mention a few examples to indicate what the customs and excise levy is utilized for. Hon. members will see that it is directly related to the interests of the motorist. The following amounts are taken from it: 2,354 cents per litre for the National Road Building Fund; financing for the stockpiling of oil supplies and the financing of Sasol also come out of this amount. It is therefore incorrect to say that half, or more, consists of tax as such. That is not true. The basic price is 30 cents per litre and the retailers’ profit margin is 3,55 cents per litre. A portion of the levy for customs and excise and the Equalization Fund is utilized for the construction of Sasol plants and for the purchase of oil which we have to purchase in all kinds of ways and on which we have to pay premiums.

Sasol is an insurance policy for the motorist and the consumer of fuel in South Africa. Without Sasol we would have been totally at the mercy of anyone wishing to force us into a comer.

We are not arguing about that.

The hon. member is not arguing about that, yet he is saying that the motorist should not make a contribution to the establishment of Sasol plants, even when it is his basic security which is being assured in this way. The hon. member says we should finance Sasol in other ways.

We must sell shares.

Yes, sell shares.

The fact of the matter is simply that no organization in this country wishes to put such large amounts in one basket. Everyone is interested in investing only so much, or so much.

But we are a long way from completing projects such as Sasol. The money which the motorist pays to the State for Sasol via the Equalization Fund or customs and excise is invested in Sasol, but it is not unproductive. It comes back to the State. We are already getting some of that money back. Now that we have reached the stage where that money is beginning to flow back, I intend going to the Cabinet and requesting that we should devise a way in which this money can be used to help the private sector as well, and to make us even more independent of imported fuel. I think that a way can be found to plough that money back, money which has already been invested in Sasol and has appreciated in value in the form of shares, when it comes back to us, into the construction and development of fuel manufacturing plants, not necessarily according to the Sasol process, but according to other processes as well, and into the development of alternative sources of fuel. Here lies a wonderful new field, where new things can be done.

Sir, I should have liked to have replied in greater detail, but my time is limited. Before I resume my seat, I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that Escom does not have a policy of discrimination in respect of Indians. I expect the Press to kick up a terrible fuss about this matter now. I can quote figures to indicate how many Indian apprentices and people who have already been trained it already has in its employ. I can also indicate what posts they are occupying.

That is not the case at Drakensberg.

My information is that in the specific case of Drakensberg, a contractor is doing that specific work. It may be that the contractor has no Indians in his employ, in terms of a labour agreement or arrangement of some kind or other. Then the hon. member must complain to the contractor. I can give the hon. member the assurance that Escom does have Indians in its employ. This year Escom appointed more Indians as apprentices than last year, and last year it appointed more than the previous year.

I want to conclude. I undertake to reply properly, either in person or by way of a letter, to the speeches of hon. members to which I have not yet replied or in respect of which, as in the case of the speech made by the hon. member for Durban North, I did not deal fully with all the aspects. I wish to thank hon. members for the constructive spirit in which the debate took place. I am sorry that the political pot-shots which the Opposition tried to take in connection with a matter which should have been kept out of the political arena, tempted me into talking politics as well.

Vote agreed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.