Mr. Chairman, may I request the privilege of the half hour.

I should like to start off this debate by first of all thanking the Department which, unlike some other departments we might mention, has seen fit to table a very full report on its activities over the last year. We are certainly grateful that we had the weekend to study this report. Certainly, while I had prepared my speech before the weekend I was able to alter one or two statements in the light of things that I read in the report. Therefore, I thank them for having tabled it. I think it would also be fitting for me as spokesman for the Official Opposition on this subject to say how much we appreciate the work that is done by the officials of the Department in the interests of not only the Department itself, but the country as a whole. We realize particularly that the past year has been a very, very difficult year for every State Department, predominantly because of the tremendous shortages of staff. The Department is no exception to that. When one looks at the number of posts that are available, without going into this particular report at this stage, it is in excess of 1 200, as I remember. When one sees the number of permanent posts that are filled and compare it with the number of temporary posts and the number of posts that are simply not filled at all, one realizes that for this Department to keep going those who are there must have done a tremendous amount of work and I am sure a lot of overtime work. I think it is fitting at the beginning of this debate that we thank them for what they have done.

The subject of minerals and energy is a tremendously big and varied subject. I believe it is impossible for any one spokesman to try and deal with the whole gamut of aspects that come to mind under this subject, and therefore various members of the Official Opposition will be dealing with aspects such as the minerals aspect and the so-called Nieuwenhuizen Report. I will not be dealing with these aspects at all at this stage. They will be dealt with by colleagues of mine. I think energy is the subject that we need to discuss most. There are four enormous subjects under energy and these are, firstly petrol and oil matters; secondly, alternative energy sources; thirdly, Escom, one of the giant corporations of South Africa; and, finally, of course, nuclear development.

It is the subject of nuclear development in South Africa that I want to start on this afternoon.

Be positive.

I thought nuclear development was positive.

Well then, make a positive contribution.

If one inspects the Budget one brings to light some rather startling figures. The South African taxpayer in the year under consideration is being asked to expend R315 558 000 on nuclear development. This is an increase in excess of 26% on the R250,2 million that was spent last year. To put this in perspective, one should compare it with the R98,7 million voted under the Vote Community Development for Black housing and, secondly, one must point out that it is in fact no less that 66% of the vote of this Department. One in fact wonders whether the hon. Minister should be called the Minister for Nuclear Affairs rather than the Minister for Mineral and Energy Affairs because such a preponderence of money spent by this Department, namely 66% of its total vote, is spent on nuclear development of one kind or another.

If one looks at the Budget one finds, first of all, that something in excess of R200 million is to be spent on the enrichment of uranium, compared with last year’s figure of R173 million. This process of enrichment was announced some time ago as a breakthrough in development, as a remarkably inexpensive means of enriching uranium by comparison with methods used in the rest of the world. It was claimed as a breakthrough. However, this has obviously led to tremendous expenditure and it will presumably continue to swallow large amounts of money until the plant is commissioned. One does not know when that is to be. There has been speculation in the press about this. I refer to The Cape Times of 28 January of this year in which Mr. David Adamson of The Daily Telegraph, in a long article on nuclear development in South Africa, makes some startling speculative statements. In this article he talks of “the commissioning in 1985 of their own enrichment plant”. So, presumably, at some time thereabout we will start actually producing. If Koeberg is to be our sole nuclear power station I wonder whether in fact all this money spent is economically warranted and whether this will be an economic proposition. I want to quote Dr. Wynand de Villiers who wrote a long article in the magazine Leadership S.A.; I am not sure whether this has in fact been distributed yet, but it is to be distributed in the very near future if it has not already been distributed. He poses the question: “Can this independence be retained in the case of nuclear power?” He is talking about independence of imported fuel for electricity generation. He says—

I think in view of that statement made by obviously the leading expert in South Africa, we should ask the hon. the Minister to bring us up to date on the state of play regarding the establishment of more nuclear power stations in South Africa and when a decision is likely to be reached. We have on the one hand a statement saying that economic viability will depend on the increased production of power from nuclear resources and on the other hand the statements that we have had from the hon. the Minister have indicated that this decision has not as yet been taken. Vast amounts of money are being expended and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some sort of definitive statement. If he cannot announce that they are going to go ahead with the erection of additional nuclear power stations perhaps he could tell us when such a decision will be reached. We are spending tremendous sums of money on this programme and I believe we should know a little bit more about how economically viable it is going to be. We certainly hope that South Africa will benefit adequately from this expenditure.

In the last year I have twice visited Koeberg and I would like to thank Escom for these opportunities and would recommend to the public in general that they visit the centre at Koeberg while they still can. Let me place on record that I am most impressed with the built-in safety factors which appear to cater for every eventuality at Koeberg.

Does that include Boeing 747’s?

That includes Boeing 747’s and also being struck by that most destructive instrument of all, the windmill. I must also, however, place on record that I do have an area of concern, and this is related to radio-active waste. On both my visits to Koeberg I was informed by the personnel at the visitors’ centre that the used fuel rods would be shipped out of South Africa for refabrication and therefore assumed that the highly radio-active waste which is a product of refabrication would be disposed of overseas. From the answers to several questions I have established that there are in fact no arrangements existing for reprocessing or refabrication nor will any reprocessing or refabrication be done in South Africa for the next five years. There are three categories of waste: there is a high level waste arising from reprocessing; there is intermediate waste from the operation or decommissioning of plants such as Koeberg; and there is low level waste such as contaminated clothing, etc. The most serious problem that nuclear power stations are faced with throughout the world has been the problem of the disposal of high level waste. I believe this is an extremely vexing problem because there does not appear to be a one hundred per cent solution or nobody has been able to point at this stage to a one hundred per cent solution. In various parts of the world it is being disposed of at sea. It is being vitrified into glass and buried deep in geological faults. That we will generate nuclear waste in South Africa is obviously undoubted, but we do not yet really know what we are going to do with that waste. I think we are entitled to know and I call on the hon. the Minister to fully inform us as to how and where all three levels of waste will be stored and secondly, once Koeberg is decommissioned, how the radio-active material remaining will be disposed of or whether the whole plant will remain standing and therefore obviously have to be guarded for as long as it poses any radio-active danger. That, of course, can be an awfully long time.

Finally, before leaving the subject of nuclear waste and nuclear power generally, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any progress has been made in terms of the possible signature by South Africa of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. I placed a question on the Question Paper earlier in this session on this matter and I got an answer that we were constantly considering this treaty. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has anything positive to tell us in this regard, because I think anybody who does not want to see any sort of nuclear holocaust anywhere would be in favour of non-proliferation. Therefore, if we were to sign a non-proliferation treaty it could be of advantage and could satisfy a lot of people as to South Africa’s intentions.

I want to move from nuclear power to Escom. In moving from one subject to the other, I must make it quite clear that the tremendous sums of money that are to be spent on nuclear development do not include the building of the Koeberg plant because that is something apart. It is an expense of Escom and not an expense of the Department. I also want to congratulate Escom on the production of their report but must nevertheless as spokesman of the Official Opposition, state that the fact that there are to be continued shortages of supply which will apparently continue for several years is obviously of very great concern to us. I appreciate that one cannot push a button and lay on additional electricity. It cannot be done at the drop of a hat. It takes a long time for the additional facilities to be created and for the additional power to come on stream. The reason for this shortage at the moment is of course firstly historical. Secondly, it is also attributable to the fact that Cabora Bassa seems to be supplying very little electricity to South Africa because, as far as we can gather, of the activities of the Mozambique resistance movements. One of the things that bothers me is that most of the new schemes which Escom has announced recently are related to coal. We have had one pump storage scheme announced recently, but I want to stress that while our water resources are limited in South Africa, I must confess that I find it hard to believe that we cannot use more of these water resources for electricity generating purposes. We are aware that hydro-electricity is probably the cheapest form of electricity that can be produced. I know that our water resources are limited, but surely there are additional resources in South Africa that can be used for electricity generation. I believe we should be proceeding with more pump storage schemes. The Cape Peninsula scheme, the original pump storage scheme in South Africa, which was erected by the Cape Town Municipality, using the Steenbras reservour, despite an initial gloomy prognostication by various so called experts on this scheme, has proved to be an outstanding success. In addition there have been developments overseas which I have referred to before in this House in terms of low head turbines which are certainly very interesting. One could certainly generate more electricity from the Orange River scheme, if one looks at the original White Paper on that scheme tabled many years ago in this House, one finds that it was dotted with a whole series of hydro-electric schemes starting from the dams in the North all the way down through the Eastern Cape. Many of those schemes have not been proceeded with. I believe we have to maximize our hydro-electric resources and I would urge the hon. the Minister and his Department that we should perhaps have a special in-depth study by competent people to accomplish the maximizing of electricity generation from water resources.

The second point I want to raise under Escom relates to a uniform tariff. I spoke on this last year and the hon. the Minister indicated at that stage that an intensive investigation was under way. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how far this has progressed and when does he expect to be able to make an announcement. This actually should really not fall under Escom because it is not their job. They have to charge differentiated tariffs for different areas in terms of an Act of this Parliament. If there is to be a uniform tariff it has to be initiated with a Bill in this House to amend the Act so that they can charge a uniform tariff. I believe that with the latest deconcentration and decentralization plans announced by the hon. the Prime Minister it becomes even more necessary that there should be a uniform tariff because were there such a thing, then the amounts of money spent by this Government on subsidizing electricity in areas where it is expensive would no longer be necessary. This could in fact save the taxpayer a fair deal of money because, given a uniform tariff, that subsidization would fall away. Under present circumstances obviously we welcome the subsidy that the Government gives. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph 3.3.4 on page 14 of the White Paper on Promotion of Industrial Development as an Element of Co-ordinated Regional Development Strategy for Southern Africa which was tabled recently, which reads as follows—

Electricity

The area of concern I have about this is that it appears to me—I may be incorrect because I have put a question on the Question Paper to which I have as yet not had an answer—that the farmer has been left out of this particular document totally. The municipal users of electricity within municipal areas will get the advantage of this new scheme. The municipalities have specifically been instructed that it has to be passed on, but they have also been instructed that if they supply electricity beyond their municipal boundaries to other users who can happen to be farmers, they may not pass it on but have to charge the original fee. There does not seem to be any effort made to subsidize the electricity costs of farmers in these areas which are getting electricity subsidies for industry and for private users. I am not aware as to whether tariff D is going to be a differentiated tariff depending on the area of undertaking or not. That is one of the matters to which I am afraid I have not got an answer at this stage. If it is not to be, if tariff D is going to be a differentiated tariff throughout the undertakings, I would plead with the hon. the Minister to see that the subsidies payable to industries and to private individuals are also paid to the farmers in the areas concerned.

The next subject I want to cover is alternative energy. I see that I am running short of time so I will be relatively brief. I believe there is still insufficient being done in South Africa in fields other than coal and nuclear technology. These, as I have said before, are finite sources of energy. I know we have lots of coal and that we could keep going with coal and Sasol I, Sasol II, Sasol III and Matla and Duvha and all the big coal generating stations of Escom, but one day we will run out of coal. It certainly will not be this century and it might not even be next century, but one day these resources will run out. At that stage we must have alternative sources of energy supply in South Africa I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot start now by maximizing the use of resources. The one area where solar energy can be relatively easily used is solar heating of, for instance, water. However, at this moment it is still slightly too expensive in comparison with Escom tariffs to warrant the average householder going for it. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot have some tax incentives for people who install solar heating schemes. I believe that if we could encourage many more householders in South Africa to preheat their water with solar energy, the draw on Escom could be fairly materially affected, particularly in those months when Escom cannot supply the power that is necessary, in other words, the cold months of the year.

Secondly, I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about daylight saving. According to the report an investigation has been done in this regard. The report on this investigation has not been tabled as yet, but the results have been tabled and I am sorry to see that the results are that we will not be proceeding with the daylight saving campaign. Experience in other countries has shown that this has worked and worked very well. It has worked in Britain and it has worked in France. It creates greater work productivity and it helps to bring down crime statistics. African commuters in particular would be able to be home before dark which would make a big difference in their lives. There could be a drop in the number of road accidents and more time would be available for sport and recreation. I would urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider this with a view to introducing daylight saving in South Africa.

Lastly, on alternative energy, I want to ask the hon. the Minister in our planning for alternative sources let us try and concentrate also more on bio-mass, that is, solar fuel rather than the incredibly high expenditure on nuclear resources. I know the Energy Planning Committee will meet in, I think, July to go through various schemes and I hope that they will give more encouragement than they already do to bio-mass schemes.

Finally, we note with pleasure that the hon. the Minister has been able to negotiate a lower contract price for crude oil for South Africa, but we can only regret from these benches the fact of increasing petrol prices against the background of lower crude prices throughout the world. South Africa is of course having to pay a premium because of boycotts by Arab countries and others. The hon. the Minister has blamed the drop in value of the rand, but the dropped value of the rand was a deliberate strategy of the financial authorities so that we cannot really blame that because it was a deliberate strategy. It is a fact, but it is a planned fact. We also did not see a decline in the price of petrol in South Africa when the rand strongly appreciated against the dollar and reached a high point of $1,36 to the rand. Of the coastal price of petrol the Government extracts no less than 23,041 cents per litre. By now Sasol II must be very close to full production. It was hitting 80% in December last year. Sasol III must be more than 90% complete. Therefore, a material percentage of fuel in South Africa must be being supplied from these coal plants. We do not know whether South Africa has to subsidize the cost of a litre from Sasol from the Equalization Fund. We must assume not. If not, then surely the calls on the Equalization Fund because of increased supply from local sources must be diminishing.

Finally, on the subject of petrol, there was recently a scare article in the local press relating to the lead content of petrol. There was a report overseas that air pollution from lead in petrol could lead to damage to unborn children. I would like the hon. the Minister to comment on this and urge him to fully investigate these reports with the view, if necessary, to decreasing the lead content in South African petrol which is currently 0,836 grammes per litre.

Finally, as regards Soekor, we note that less is to be spent this year and that some significant finds have been made in the FA structure off Mossel Bay. Is the bulk of the money this year to be spent on the FA area and what are the hopes in this regard for South Africa? Certainly, it would be the best news this House could have if we had our own sources of crude oil.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central dealt with a wide variety of matters and there is really very little on which I can disagree with him. This tells me in the first instance that this Department is being run very efficiently. From what I could gather, the hon. member was of the opinion that proportionately too much money was being spent on nuclear research. When one considers that nuclear energy is the most obvious form of alternative energy for us in this country, I believe it is important that at this stage we should spend more than a proportional amount to get it off the ground.

I think we are all concerned about the question of nuclear waste, but the hon. the Minister has already furnished replies in this regard when he stated in the House that occurrences at nuclear power stations throughout the world were being monitored and studied continuously and that any recommendations which could apply to Koeberg were being followed. As far as this is concerned therefore, I think we can rest assured that the Government and this Department are doing everything in their power to overcome the dangers in this regard.

Are they going to bury it in Namaqualand?

There is probably enough space for anything except for burying things like that.

On the question of hydro-electricity I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him. There are probably still possibilities for hydroelectricity in the form of running water in the rivers. However, I am convinced that if the hon. member and I could think of this, Escom would have thought of it long ago and would be doing the necessary research in this regard.

On the question of the price of petrol, the hon. member is aware that the 23 cents which does not go to the Treasury but which is used for all kinds of projects in the interests of the public at large, is money that is being very well spent.

In South Africa minerals are the greatest single generator of wealth and will probably remain so for many decades to come. Energy is one of the cornerstones of prosperity and particularly of personal comfort, which has become a characteristic of modern society. When we add to this the fact that South Africa occupies sixteen first and second places in Western mineral production and seven first places in the world’s reserves of strategic minerals, and that South Africa is a world leader in the field of synthetic fuel, we realize that the Department whose Vote we are dealing with here today is one of cardinal importance. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this Department may perhaps even be somewhat underrated precisely because late twentieth century society accepts prosperity and comfort as a matter of course. It is therefore important that this industry and the people in it should prosper.

With regard to mine workers, the long-awaited Nieuwenhuizen Report has now been laid upon the Table. The Government is now awaiting further representations and comments—up to 15 June 1982—and will thereafter issue a White Paper. A meaningful debate on this matter is therefore not possible at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the budget itself, it is significant to note that the largest single amount, viz. R130 million, out of a budget of approximately R478 million, is being spent on direct research. Apart from this, a total amount of R200 million is being appropriated for uranium enrichment and R67 million for Soekor’s search for oil and gas.

The main aim of research in our case is, of course, to make South Africa independent in the sphere of energy but also to prove the viability of processes and then to involve the private sector. Sasol has already done so by making public share issues.

The Atomic Energy Board’s successful irradiation process for agricultural products is available to the private sector while research on solar energy has made great progress with the so-called Loxton Project. Of course, one would like to have more money to do even more in the sphere of research and in the search for oil as well but, unfortunately, the State’s financial capabilities are not unlimited. An important obstacle in this regard is the shortage of trained researchers and nuclear physicists.

Prosperity in the mineral industry is closely connected to economic circumstances in the rest of the world. The world recession and rising costs have hit the mining industry hard over the past 18 months. The biggest single negative factor has definitely been the gold price which has fallen drastically and which has resulted in a reduction in the revenue from gold of R1 813 million.

In contrast, coal has improved its position with an increased revenue of R289 million, particularly as a result of larger exports and favourable contracts.

A very important ray of hope is the fact that the domestic sales of minerals increased by 45% from R783 million to R1 135 million in 1981. This is an indication of the increased local use and processing of minerals.

South Africa is one of the fortunate countries in the world possessing large quantities of easily exploitable metals and minerals— hence its highly competitive position on the foreign market. Unfortunately, however, there are two sectors in the mineral industry that have been particularly hard hit. The first is the diamond industry which, from the nature of the industry itself, is extremely sensitive to prolonged weak economic circumstances. Because there are other restrictive factors in the processing of diamonds, this may perhaps be a good time to review the position in order to give the industry the greatest possible advantage in the final processing of precious stones.

However, the mineral industry which has been most adversely affected is undoubtedly the copper industry in which, with the exception of 1974, prices have shown a constant declining tendency over the past 11 years standing effectively at present at the 1957 price level.

Mr. Chairman, when we consider that in South Africa ore with a copper content of 1,8% and less is mined in deep mines and that it then competes on the world market with other countries which mine ore with a copper content of up to 5% in open mines, we realize that this clearly demonstrates the effectiveness and the expertise of the South African copper mining industry.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to permit the hon. member to continue his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip very much indeed.

I now want to express a few thoughts on energy. Because energy is such an important component in every sector of the economic and social life of the national economy, the price of energy is an extremely important factor. However, it is of more importance to South Africa that notwithstanding boycotts, energy should be available continuously. Unfortunately, in order to ensure long-term contracts and a constant supply, South Africa has to pay more for crude oil. This, together with the fact that the rand is still decreasing in value against the dollar and the fact that all oil transactions take place in dollars, has the effect that in the midst of a world decline in the price of crude oil, South Africa has to pay more for fuel. This is a matter which is not easily understood by the average motorist. However, the Equalization Fund makes this adjustment as painless as possible.

Sir, I have said that the price of energy is extremely important, and it will therefore be subject to constant criticism. For this reason there will always be a demand for uniform energy prices, particularly in those areas where electricity and fuel are most expensive. However, it is unfortunately true that if in future one group of consumers pays less, there will always be another group which has to pay more. It so happens that if, for example, we were to have a uniform tariff for electricity, the PWV area would have to pay a higher tariff than at present. The PWV area is the industrial heart of our country, and this would therefore result in our economy becoming unbalanced to some extent, since industries have developed there precisely as a result of lower tariffs. Any tariff saving would probably also to a large extent be neutralized by the higher prices of manufactured goods.

Decentralization advantages and the special financial aid in respect of the supply of energy to remote areas have an equalizing effect, and so I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the measures he envisaged last year and which have in the meanwhile become a reality.

As far as the price of energy is concerned, Escom often comes under fire—in respect of the latest increase in price a few days ago as well. No organization is beyond criticism but the fact is that Escom supplies 93% of the country’s electricity in an effective and reliable way. Prof. Dutkiewicz of the Energy Research Centre in Cape Town referred recently to a survey which shows that South Africa is one of the cheapest suppliers of electricity in the world. This information tallies with Escom’s annual report which indicates that if hydro-power is excluded, Escom does in fact provide the cheapest electricity in the world.

Mr. Chairman, no mineral and energy debate can take place in South Africa without reference to the brilliant achievement of Sasol which was established at the insistence and on the recommendation of men who, at the right time, had the insight to take out a timely policy against a fickle world of boycotts and sanctions. The day will come when this can also be said of the Atomic Energy Board in the field of nuclear fuel. Thanks to undertakings such as Sasol, Escom and the Atomic Energy Board, a world renowned physicist, Dr. Teller, was able to say recently: “The cutting off of oil would be disturbing to South Africa but not catastrophic.” These words are the culmination of a long-term policy successfully implemented.

In conclusion, on behalf of this side of the Committee, I should like to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to the Director-General, Mr. Sarel du Plessis, and his staff for fine services rendered. When one considers that there are approximately 1 200 posts on his establishment, a third of which are filled with permanent appointments and a third with temporary appointments, while a third are vacant, it makes this achievement of his and of his staff truly remarkable.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Namakwaland referred to various matters which I shall unfortunately be unable to discuss fully with him in the time I am allowed in this debate. However, I want to agree with the sentiments he expressed on the money which ought to be spent on nuclear research. Every single one of us who had the privilege of visiting Valin-daba was impressed with the quality of the work that is being done there and with what is being achieved there. We in the Conservative Party are also in complete agreement with the thoughts he expressed on the value of our minerals and their exploitation. As regards the Nieuwenhuizen Report, I shall come back to that at a later stage, but I do not agree with him that we shall not be able to conduct a meaningful debate on the report, because this is the perfect opportunity for expressing our thoughts on the report. I shall come back to that later.

Mr. Chairman, our party is also concerned about the fact, that the gold price is dropping, but we share the special optimism of the hon. the Minister in respect of the gold price and we believe that it will escalate in future.

I do not want to agree fully with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as regards his friendliness towards the hon. the Minister in connection with this very interesting report which was tabled on Friday. Although I appreciate that fact that the hon. the Minister was so courteous as to express regret at the late appearance of the report, I must say for the record that this is the third or fourth report this year which was similarly tabled at a late stage, or not quite in good time. This creates the impression that the Government is conducting its business in a hasty and uneasy way. In recent times we have not been gaining the impression of calm and effective government. We also missed this energetic Minister in the Chamber, and we deplore the fact that he is not receiving energetic receptions from audiences in the Transvaal. In addition we are somewhat concerned about the value of his shares in the political constellation. [Interjections.] I hope that it is not a case here of the murderer being unable to inherit from the estate of the victim.

Frank, you are more embittered than the Progs! I never thought I would live to see the day.

No, I’m not trying to be mean. I want to flatter the Minister. I want to congratulate the Minister on behalf of the Conservative Party on a successful ministerial year, and on an excellent annual report. It is interesting to read how wide-ranging the activities of the Minister are. In the section for dairy and beef breeds at the Namaqualand agricultural show the Minister walked away with two championship certificates for dairy and beef breeds and with nine first prizes, and in the section for horses he walked away with two championship certificates and three first prizes, at Walvis Bay, at the diamond diggings—it seems to me the hon. the Minister himself did not have any knowledge about this either! From this his activities extend to overseas missions and the search for oil.

One of the few matters I want to single out from the report, is firstly the retirement of Mr. Gerhard Kirchner as Government Mining Engineer on 30 September 1981. We pay tribute to his efficient and conscientious work throughout South Africa for a large number of years. We wish his successor, Mr. V. C. Barnes, every success in his activities.

A second aspect on which I want to comment, is the significant decrease in the number of accidents and deaths on the goldmines. The number of deaths decreased from 1,34 per 1 000 in 1980 to 1,27 in 1981, and the number of accidents from 37,6 per 1 000 to 32,2 per 1 000. Some gold-mines are more than 3 kilometres deep and experience major problems with regard to heat and rock-falls. Nevertheless the number of people who die on our roads every month is virtually the same as the number who die in mine accidents every year. This is indeed a proud achievement.

In the third place I want to express the appreciation of the Conservative Party for the progress being made with surface rehabilitation at opencast coal-mines.

In the fourth place it is evident from the report of the Director: Geological Survey and from the report of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases that this Ministry, too, has to contend with a tremendous staff shortage. An alarming drainage of staff to the private sector is still taking place. I wonder what success is being achieved in this regard as far as recruiting in overseas countries is concerned.

In the fifth place, Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to note that enlightening figures are furnished with regard to the cumulative demand for coal in South Africa up to the year 2020, viz. 12 700 million tons, whereas a conservative estimate indicates that the in situ reserves regarded as recoverable are 52 000 million tons. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could elaborate on these aspects in his reply. We shall appreciate his doing so.

Sir, in the main I want to confine myself, however, to the Nieuwenhuizen Report on the compensation for occupational diseases in the Republic of South Africa. In the first instance the Conservative Party deplores the delay in the tabling of this very important document. There are aspects of the report which are unacceptable to the Conservative Party. Without dealing with this matter comprehensively, I want to point out the following aspects and at the same time express appreciation for the fact that a White Paper will be issued in due course. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to undertake a very careful study of this matter before the Government adopts a final standpoint.

It would be a mistake if the Occupational Diseases Act were to be incorporated into the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Occupational Diseases Act has a long history dating all the way back to the time of the Milner Commission of 1902. The legislation itself came into operation in 1917, and the premise is that the position of the mineworker is an exceptional one; it is sui generis. The commission itself confirms this, and says that the mineworker works in difficult atmospheric conditions and dusty air. After all, the commission itself admits on page 16, in paragraph 4.25, that there is very little overlapping of these two Acts. In other words, they may as well continue to exist separately. I quote from this paragraph—

Furthermore, in paragraphs 4.32 and 4.38, the commission also emphasizes that miners are trained mainly for underground work. Upon the withdrawal of such a miner’s certificate of fitness he often loses his mine house as well. Consequently I want to address a serious plea to the hon. the Minister not to have these two Acts consolidated in one Act.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the Select Committee on which I had the privilege to serve in 1973, found even then that the compensation upon certification ought to be paid out in a single amount. This compensation is not a pension, and it is comparable to a third-party claim. I think we have reached finality about the matter. When one loses the use of one’s arm in a motor accident, one receives an aggregate amount as compensation.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Geduld for the concession.

Why should a miner who has lost his certificate of fitness receive his compensation in instalments? In the third place, Sir, the Conservative Party expresses its opposition to examinations in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asians being carried out every three years up to the age of 30 years. I am referring to recommendation No. 19. In respect of Black people the position is that they are still examined on a six-monthly basis. We say that that is discrimination.

In the fourth place, Sir, we cannot associate ourselves with the employer undertaking the medical examination. The Minister himself is aware of the fact that the miners already adopt a sceptical attitude towards the Bureau—to a large extent unjustly so. How much more doubt would there not be about the lack of objectivity and impartiality if this function were to be in the hands of the employer? In this regard I also refer to paragraph 4.93, where we find the following—

Sir, if this recommendation were to be accepted, it would further contribute to scepticism on the part of the miners. But probably the main objection we have to these recommendations relates to the so-called presumption of a disease after a certain number of years. Sir, you will recall that our National Party MPs went to plead with the commission in favour of some relief in terms of paragraph (d) of the terms of reference, but we did not advance the plea on that basis, because paragraph (d) creates the impression of being unscientific. We feel that after a period of 25 years there should in fact be a certain kind of gratuity payable to a miner. The commission summarily dismisses this matter as one between employer and employee. If this were a correct view, one might as well say that the compensation for pneumoconiosis itself would be a matter between employer and employee were it not for the protection by and intervention of the Government. I accept that the gold-mining industry is experiencing certain problems, for example the uncertain gold price. However, it shows an upward trend, and the hon. the Minister himself has an unshakable belief in this, and on that score we are in agreement. But, Sir, look at recommendation No. 43 now and you will see that the mining magnates, too, are not entirely blameless. I just want to quote a few sentences in this regard—

This recommendation has a footnote which states that pension benefits for mining officials were introduced in 1946 and those for underground mineworkers in 1948. Time does not permit me to go into this matter any further but I want to refer very pointedly to that footnote, No. 1, and recommendation No. 43, on page 40.

In conclusion I want to say that these in the main are the problems I experience with regard to the Nieuwenhuizen Report. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister to conduct a wide and in-depth consultation, also with the trade unions, before final decisions are taken in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity that the hon. member for Brakpan, whom I have come to know as someone who always makes sensible contributions, should have in this debate made what was perhaps a rather personal reference to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I personally find this a pity.

I do not think that that was necessary in a debate like this.

Sir, I shall come back shortly to several matters which the hon. member mentioned here. First of all, however, I want to refer to the contribution of the hon. chief spokesman of the Progressive Federal Party. In his half hour speech there was not a single reference to the mineworker as such. This creates the impression that that party is in fact rather indifferent to the interests of the mineworker as such, and that, too, one certainly finds sad.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan highlighted several points in the Nieuwenhuizen Report to which his party objects. One of these aspects is that the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act is going to be incorporated into the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I believe the hon. the Minister can reply to that in full but my view of the matter is that the intention is merely to ensure, specifically in the long term, a better basis of compensation to the mineworker who in the course of his service contracts a compensatable disease. It is a fact that many of the mineworkers who are eligible for the payment of a one-sum benefit tend—and in a way this is a pity—not to use that one-sum benefit which they receive in this way quite as sensibly as would be the case with a pension. I do not want to use the word “waste” here. The hon. member for Brakpan also said that he thought it a pity that the employer would in future decide on the compensation but, in fact, it is not the employer as such.

It is the employer who has to finance the investigation—that is what they recommend.

Then I shall leave it at that.

The cause that I want to plead here this afternoon proceeds more or less from what the hon. member for Brakpan had to say. It is true, and I believe we are all aware of it, that as far as compensation to mineworkers is concerned, there was always a shortcoming—a shortcoming in their compensation package. This shortcoming was generally that provision was always made for short-term benefits instead of long-term benefits. One of the results of this was that the pension benefits of the mineworker were until recently inadequate. A considerable improvement has taken place in this respect on which I do not want to elaborate since another member on this side of the House will do so comprehensively. Suffice it to say that one is grateful for this. It affected the old mineworker in particular and I believe the Nieuwenhuizen Commission referred to it and confirmed it. The situation has improved however, and we appreciate it. There is however another shortcoming which I want to point out and that is there is a need among mineworkers for a long service gratuity. As in the case of any other worker the mineworker, at the end of his period of service, wants to be entitled to a long service gratuity with which he may wish to buy a car or a new house, have improvements done to his house or whatever the case may be. Because his pension benefits do not provide for this it means that he has to an increasing extent to look to other sources for such long service gratuity. The source to which he has begun to look is the Bureau for Occupational Diseases. It is true that the provident fund is at present paying a mineworker R150 for each year of service but this is so insignificant that it cannot even be mentioned in the same breath as a long service gratuity. The fact of the matter is that only the Medical Bureau is looked upon as the possible source of a long service gratuity. This means, however, that a person who wishes to be illegible for it will have to be certified as having contracted some or other occupational disease. In practice this means the following: If a mineworker works for 30 years and is certified in the first and second degree, he then qualifies for one-sum benefits. If he is not certified and he has the same number of years of service then in actual fact he comes out of it with nothing. This is a cause of great dissatisfaction among mine-workers and results in pressure being exerted upon the Medical Bureau to certify all mineworkers indiscriminately, whether they have contracted a disease or not. In order to remedy this situation at all the trade union and the employers should sit down around a table for a change and discuss the possibility of a long service gratuity. This will mean that the mineworker as such will also have to make an important financial input. I know that mineworkers have thus far not been willing to do so. They feel that such long service gratuity or disbursement after 25 vears should come from the employer, but I do not consider that to be completely fair or reasonable. I believe the mineworker should also on his part make an important input which will enable him at some stage in the future when he begins to draw a pension to qualify for a long service gratuity. I know that it is only human to prefer to go home with a bigger salary cheque in one’s pocket rather than to provide for what lies ahead. It is also only human to prefer to avail oneself of a mining company house which costs an insignificant sum rather than to provide for one’s own house. It is human but not wise. I sincerely trust that the trade union and the employers’ organization will get together in order to negotiate a long service gratuity in the future. Developments that may result from the Nieuwenhuizen report make this even more necessary. The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act could be incorporated into the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This may result—I do not want to anticipate the decisions of the Government on the recommendations of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission—in the compensation basis which applies to the Workmen’s Compensation Act and which, in my opinion, is a good compensation basis, also serving as the compensation basis for occupational diseases contracted on the mines and this may then place the existing one-sum benefits that are paid in jeopardy. For that reason I consider it all the more essential that, in the interests of the mineworker, a long service gratuity be negotiated as part of his normal pension benefits.

The hon. member for Randfontein made out a very good case for those specific aspects of the mineworker’s life which are very important to him and to all of us. He will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he said because I want to talk more specifically about mining in general and particularly the present malaise in the goldmines.

†The price of gold has decreased quite considerably. During 1981 the average price of gold was in the region of R402 per fine ounce. The expectations are that during 1982 the price of gold will possibly go as low as R280 per ounce, and it is therefore quite possible that gold will average in the region of R300 to R320 per ounce. If this is so, then of course the mining industry in South Africa as a whole and the economy of South Africa will be very seriously and adversely affected.

With regard to annual reports, let me say at this stage that I would like to congratulate the departments and the organizations concerned on the production of excellent annual reports, certainly as far as quantity of information is concerned. We also appreciate the footnote or insert from the hon. the Minister’s Department to the effect that they are aware of the fact that inconvience is created when reports are delivered late, rather than early. Nevertheless, we are grateful for the quantitative aspects of the reports and they are certainly very fine reports indeed. I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister and his Director-General and all the heads of organizations for those reports and I trust that the hon. Minister, in his political career, will be as productive and fruitful as his departments are, although the most recent information we have from the Transvaal—the domain of the National Party where he is the leader—indicates that it may go as badly with his operation as it is going in the mining industry at the moment. I do not say that light-heartedly—those are the facts which stare the hon. the Minister in the face. [Interjections.] I believe the underground mining operation of the Conservative Party is going very well in the Transvaal, but of course all people who dig too deep too quickly must be beware of rockfalls as they may find they are in a cul-de-sac. That is an aspect of the hon. Minister’s life which we will watch with great interest.

I would like to come back to the fortunes or misfortunes of the goldmines and say that my concern is for both the financial health and wealth and the welfare of the mining industry, specifically because South Africa is so dependent upon the mining industry for the creation and provision of employment opportunities in South Africa. We are delighted to see from the statements made to date that a special commission, under the hon. Minister of Finance’s Department, will be examining State aid to the marginal mines. From the figures I have quoted, if expectations are correct, we will find that with an average gold price of R320 per ounce the number of assisted mines will probably grow from five to at least double that number. The amount of R26 million provided for by the hon. Minister’s department may well prove to be inadequate by at least 100% if the gold price continues to decrease and if costs of production continue to increase. I should like to make a particular appeal to the hon. Minister to do everything possible in his power to see that we continue to maintain the operation of as many goldmines as possible in South Africa, not only for the gold they produce and the foreign exchange, but for the employment opportunities which are provided. In talking about employment opportunities, I should like to say to the hon. Minister that we seem to have a discrepancy between the figures provided in his departmental report and the figures provided by the Department of Statistics. It is quite a serious discrepancy because the one figure indicates that during 1981 there was an increase in employment opportunities in the mining industry—that is in the departmental report—and on the other hand the official statistics indicate a decrease in employment opportunities. I am not all that concerned with the macro argument that I should like to put forward about this discrepancy, except that it does require investigation. The mining industry is one of our primary sources of employment in South Africa and if one looks at the percentage of labour employed in terms of South African citizenship or that of territories which were previously South African areas, we see how important labour opportunities are in the mining industry. I would like to come back to the discrepancy I mentioned earlier on. In the short term economic indicators from the Department of Statistics of March 1982, we are told that in January the mining industry employed 730 000 people and by December 1981 that figure had gone down to 710 000, in other words a decrease of 20 000. That is the trend line for 1981, whereas in the hon. Minister’s departmental report, we are told on page 14 that in 1981 763 000 people were employed compared with 743 000 in 1980. Those trend lines are completely different and it will be interesting to hear from the hon. Minister why we have these differences. If the mining industry continues to suffer the ill-fortunes it suffered in 1981, the expectation is that there will be a decreasing number of employment opportunities created in South Africa. If this is the case, we will run into very serious trouble because the manufacturing sector is also not able to produce the job opportunities which we require. This whole question of job opportunities is in fact the Minister’s responsibility and not that of the hon. Minister of Manpower, because it revolves around the formula for assistance to marginal mines. We can see from all the figures and statistics provided that the opportunities for employment are going to decrease if the number of assisted mines decreases as well. We take note of the investigation which the hon. Minister mentions in a number of publications, not the least of which is the memorandum on estimates, where it is mentioned that the desirability for continued Government assistance in terms of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, 1968, is being investigated by a committee appointed by the Minister of Finance. We believe that the hon. Minister and his department are going to play a very significant role in determining the health and welfare of our economy, in terms of what is accepted or rejected by that particular committee. I should like to make a particular appeal to that committee, through the hon. Minister’s department, to look at all the wide-ranging and broad aspects which affect mining. We will in particular have to have a revaluation of the investment allowance on capital employed. This is a key factor and we trust that this particular committee will pay intensive and extensive attention to that particular factor. The trend line is that gold mines are beginning to mechanize to an increasing extent and this will in itself affect employment opportunities. We will have to strike a very clear balance between the value of the mining industry in South Africa as a fiscal and financial resource—both internal and external revenue—and its sociological and economic function in providing employment opportunities. We can also see the effect it will have on Escom and Escom’s forward planning. We noticed from Escom’s reports that the mining industry consumes more than 25% of the total electrical output. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have pleasure in following the hon. member for Durban North. He put specific questions to the hon. the Minister to which he will receive an answer. I noticed that he was very worried about the creation of job opportunities, about which this side of the House is also concerned, but he said nothing about what is being done to train people, which is also a very important point. These two matters cannot be viewed separately, but the hon. the Minister will probably give him an answer to that. In pursuance of the remark by the hon. member for Brakpan that the annual report of this Department arrived so late, I want to state that it is very unfair to say that. We must bear in mind that this report covers the period right up to the end of the financial year, in other words 31 December, and with such a multitude of facts, material and details that have to be published it is not easy to have the report ready two and a half months after the expiry of the financial year. I believe we should congratulate the department in that this document has in fact been made available to us at this stage. I also want to thank the officials who were kind enough to give us their time when we were preparing for this debate.

When a debate on mineral and energy affairs is being conducted, one is speaking indirectly to the farmer as well. I want to dwell on this subject for a while, viz. the inseparability of the trilogy of the farmer, the State and the mining house. With regard to the State I just want to air a few thoughts on the involvement and responsibility of the State in the whole process of mining activities. The formulation and implementation of an overall mineral and energy policy is, for various reasons, an enormous and very responsible task. Speakers on both sides of the House have referred to the enormous scope of this task and I do not want to discuss it any further. The point that I want to make is that it is an enormous task, and for very good reasons. One of these reasons has already been indicated and that is that we are in the limelight as far as this matter is concerned for the very reason that this country is blessed with breathtaking mineral and energy resources the scope of which we have probably not yet realized—and the end is not by any means yet in sight. Members on this side of the House are still to express many ideas on the strategic value thereof, and the enormity and the importance of this task for us will also be emphasized. These exceptionally rich resources not only put us on the world map as suppliers but also made us a pace-setter in respect of mining technology. When talking about mining in South Africa one cannot forget the monumental contribution of this industry to the socio-economic upliftment of people—even deep in Africa. When we put these thoughts together—the socio-economic upliftment resulting from this and the fact that we are pace-setters in respect of the technology in the mining industry as well as the fact that we are world leaders in this respect—we certainly have reason to be proud when we talk about these matters. When a mineral and energy policy is formulated and implemented it is necessary for the Department—they are doing so regularly now and will in future be paying far more attention to this—to keep regional mining inventories so as to obtain a realiable evaluation in order to know what we are dealing with and how to conduct these matters. Furthermore, it is necessary that our legislation is of such a nature that all the parties concerned will be protected and that matters will be properly arranged. By the way, I believe that it is a recognized fact that our legislation in respect of mining activities and mining is among the best in the world. It is also important that the State does not delay the orderly exploitation of the earth’s crust unnecessarily.

I said at the outset that this debate which we are now conducting on mineral and energy affairs affects the farmer very closely. It is the farmer whom the prospector contacts in the first place and with very fine plans and ideas quite often not necessarily upsets the farmer’s plans but makes it difficult for him to carry on with his own affairs. It is the farmer who is concerned about the beautiful fields and pastures and he may feel threatened in as much as he and his ancestors have been in control of the farm for generations. It is the farmer who can point out to one the permanent scars of mining activities such as an unsightly slimes dam which can cover a few hundred hectares of land and which can permanently deprive him of its use. Mining headgear, for example, give a totally different look to an environment and spoil it to some extent. One can also mention the establishment of new towns which goes hand in hand with mining activities, as well as the construction of roads and the movement of people which overnight can turn what was once rural tranquillity into the never-ending movement of people from one place to another. Open quarries and mine-dumps can also leave ugly scars on the landscape. However, we must note with appreciation what the report has to say in respect of the efforts that are being made to reclaim and rehabilitate the soil. Very much less than 1% of the surface of our country is taken up by mining activities, and an even smaller percentage of it is land with a high agricultural potential. We have had the experience and we have seen how even that small percentage can result in the disappearance of a small intensive farming unit with a high agricultural potential. There is enough proof, however, that the State, and his department specifically, looks after the interests of the farmer. It is certainly not without reason that there are mining commissioners in charge of regional offices who exercise control over the utilization of the land proclaimed for mining purposes. They are the liaison officers between the department and the land owner. Furthermore, the legislation ensures that the owner has full bargaining power, if he holds the mineral rights in respect of his land, when a prospector wants to enter into a prospecting contract. The Act goes even further. Even where the mining rights are reserved in favour of the State, the land owner still has the exclusive right to prospect provided of course he takes out a prospecting licence. The legislation that has been passed in this Parliament over the past seven years is to the advantage of the farmer and he now receives a better financial deal. A great deal is being done to reclaim land. It is important to note that the increased mining leases are payable regardless of the fact that in the meantime the land owner still has full use of his ownership rights. The legislation goes even further and provides that a mine owner is compelled to buy land if, as a result of mining activities, it becomes permanently incapable of being used for agricultural purposes and appears no longer to be economical as a farming unit. And so we can elaborate on this point.

Finally, I just want to tell farmers that each farmer ought to be informed and aware of the implications of a proposed prospecting contract and the relevant legal provisions, because this matter is fertile ground for conflict between the man to whom the farm belongs and those who are interested in the riches below the surface. It is therefore absolutely essential with any contractual agreement, particularly where mineral rights are at stake, to obtain the assistance of an expert. The mining commissioner should be consulted and what the farmer proposes to do should be arranged and discussed with him. Make use of the local legal adviser and read the pamphlet which the Department has compiled specially as a manual for prospectors and land owners and of which few farmers scent to he aware. [time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg will forgive me if I do not follow him directly this afternoon. The hon. Minister’s portfolio covers such a wide field that the time devoted in this debate to it, is quite inadequate.

You could at least say that it was a good speech.

I agree that it was a very good speech.

†I would like to confine myself this afternoon to a subject with which I am more familiar and that relates to rural affairs. Before I do that, I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister on his report. From reading it, it is obvious that his portfolio has been tackled in a very professional and competent fashion and handled on a very scientific basis. What was very interesting was the method used in energy projections and the use of input-output models. I found this interesting because it used to be my field of study. I tried to interest a student in it once but he could not get any figures from the hon. Minister’s Department, for understandable reasons, so that project fell flat. What I would, however, like to say, is that this report really concentrates on the problems of a First World industrialized economy. It is very well known that we in South Africa are a mixture of the First World and the Third World.

You did not put that in your political manifesto.

I do not have much time to be sidetracked on those comments, but, anyway, to get back to the point. We have nearly 10 million people in South Africa who live very much in a Third World situation when it comes to meeting their energy requirements. Their main source of energy is wood for fuel, and I believe that it is this field that should enjoy more attention, especially in the field of research. It should be established what the energy requirements are and what resources are available to meet these energy requirements. We on this side of the House, and I am sure everybody in this Committee today, is terribly concerned about this problem because in meeting their energy requirements these people are bringing about a very serious environmental degradation. Trees, woody bushes and shrubs are being consumed as fuel. In regard to this aspect I would like to quote a few interesting statistics that were compiled by the Institute of Natural Resources. They do very good work and are attached to the University of Natal. It is estimated that for every man, woman and child in the rural area, between 0,6 and 1 ton of wood per annum is used to meet their requirements. This is obviously used for firewood, houses, kraals, fencing and this type of thing. In KwaZulu, it is estimated that 2 million tons of wood are used per annum. Another interesting statistic is that the collection of wood—this is also based on the same research—uses something like 40 000 man-years per annum; merely in the collection of this wood. This shows what a huge waste of resources and manpower this is, and which obviously could be channelled elsewhere.

The other problem that relates to this consumption of two million tons per annum, is that the natural rate of regrowth or regeneration is much slower than the rate of consumption. Therefore, one has a situation of gradual environmental degradation. This degradation is not only due to the use of fuel wood for energy, it is also related to other problems, such as overgrazing, etc. However, the burning of wood is one of the main problems.

The other point I should like to make is that this is taking place at a cost to us right now, though not in the sense that it is paid for with money out of our pockets or money from our budget. We do not always feel this cost because it is something that we are not paying, but it is a real cost to society, to all of us. It is a cost in the sense that it is making these areas less viable, it is a cost in the sense that it is making these areas less able to support their population, and it is a cost in the sense that it is forcing people to move elsewhere, to find work or employment.

Looking at the hon. the Minister’s vote it is interesting to note that his total budget is R477 million. Of that R315 million is spent on nuclear energy and R106 million of that is spent on nuclear research. In his Vote I notice that there is a figure of R1,4 million devoted to research on alternative and other sources of energy. I know that some of this research is funded by other sources like the CSIR. I am not criticising the amount spent on nuclear research, but I really believe we could spend a little more on looking at our renewable energy sources, and research based on this. My hon. colleague here mentioned solar energy today, and an interesting statistic is that in the United States the amount of solar energy striking the ground is 500 times more than their annual consumption. I cannot find a comparable figure for South Africa, but with our lower energy usage per capita and, of course, more sunshine striking our surface, I should not be surprised if the energy striking the surface of South Africa was more than 1 000 times of what we actually need.

[Inaudible.]

Of course this is a renewable source. I shall ignore that comment. [Interjections.] I believe it is something which in fact should enjoy far greater attention and research input in this country. Another point raised here was the question of using bio-mass. I know the technology is fairly complicated at this stage. It is not easily transferred to a rural setting. However, I believe that bio-mass, solar energy and also perhaps wind energy to a certain extent, are part of the solution in the long run. What are the solutions in the short run, or for the intermediate term? Firstly, I think we could encourage greater electrification of rural areas, with electricity being supplied to certain points in rural areas. It will attract people there, it will provide points for growth and it will lessen the demand on the environment caused by using wood for energy. I know that Escom has problems and that they are expanding as fast as they can, but I think that this should enjoy very high priority in their planning.

A second point we should encourage is that more use should be made of coal, even if it is subsidized as far as transport costs are concerned. For example, I know that in this country we export a lot of very low grade quality coal to Korea. This is processed into brickettes. They have designed a special stove there that uses this coal. We could do something like this in South Africa. I know it is a new technology and that the adoption process is probably fairly slow, but once it is accepted and starts being adopted, the rate of adoption will increase. It can certainly make a great contribution to the provision of an alternative source of energy in our rural areas.

Thirdly, afforestation to increase the supply of fuel wood is important but could probably be more easily tackled by the Minister of Environment Affairs, although I believe these problems should be attacked by both these Ministers.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House believe this is a very serious problem. It should enjoy high priority. Sitting in this Committee, the whole problem seems very far away and removed when we talk about trees and shrubs being burnt out in the rural areas, but it is happening, it is happening every day. The situation is not improving. I think it is something we should really attack now because if we do not, one day large areas of our country are going to be irreparably damaged and future generations will blame us for being shortsighted in this aspect.

That is power-sharing.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Port Elizabeth Central also objected, inter alia, to the money in the budget that the department and the Government are spending on atomic research. Here we have the same tendency as we had when the NP Government established Iscor and later Sasol. At that stage there was strenuous objections to these two institutions. Later, however, it appeared that these two institutions had become the backbone of our steel industry and our liquid petroleum industry. This will also be the case with atomic research: Koeberg is only the start of what the future holds for us. All things considered it is clear that not only in South Africa but also throughout the world nuclear power stations will not simply be an option open to us but will eventually become a necessity.

We have been privileged to watch Koeberg grow during the past five years, from its foundations until recently when we were privileged to visit it in its final stages. A short while ago the first tests were run at Koeberg. It will be a tremendous achievement for South Africa and its technicians when Koeberg is completed early next year. When we consider that Koeberg will have been built in five years compared with other countries where similar operations take up to eight years, it is a feather in the cap for our builders, our technicians and our country. However, it is also a privilege for our technicians who were not previously acquainted with nuclear power stations to come into contact with the French technicians helping to build this plant and to be trained here in South Africa in this new technique.

One may well ask, why nuclear power? Let us in the first place consider our coal position in South Africa at present. According to the most recent estimate of the department, South Africa’s coal reserves total approximately 60 000 million tons. Of this quantity approximately 100 millions tons is produced annually of which 24 million tons is exported. As far as the generation of electricity in South Africa is concerned, we are restricted to two types of fuel, namely coal and uranium, because we have no natural gas or oil we can use for this purpose as does the USA or Europe. Our rivers are also so situated and subject to such a fluctuating flow as a result of droughts that, as far as the question of hydro-electric power is concerned, we cannot rely to any extent on them, and we are not doing much in this sphere. It will also be difficult to do anything about this in the future. We must also take into account that coal is the backbone of South Africa’s two large energy industries, namely Escom and Sasol. In addition, most of the coal is used to generate electricity because almost all the electricity generated in South Africa, over 93%, is generated by Escom. During the past decade the generation of electricity has increased annually by approximately 8%. Now that Koeberg has been completed uranium will supplement coal as a source of electricity. One can also ask, why use uranium when coal is still so plentiful? Unfortunately, there are no coal deposits in the Western Cape. Our largest coal mines are in the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State. It has therefore become too expensive in the long term to transport coal to the Western Cape owing to transport costs. When one considers that a power station with the capacity of Koeberg will need 16 000 tons of coal daily one gets an idea of the enormous amount of energy that will be consumed in getting that coal here, as well as of the cost involved. After all, it still remains dependent on transport from the North. We should therefore not see Koeberg as being of the utmost importance now but rather as an example of good forward planning, as was the case with Iscor and Sasol. Accompanying this of course there are also the tremendous losses in electricity owing to the great distance the coal has to travel from the North.

In the USA, where nuclear power stations have been in operation since 1957, costs have proved that in the long run nuclear power is cheaper than coal. In the USA at the moment nuclear power costs about 1,5 cents per kilowatt hour, coal 2,3 cents per kilowatt hour and oil 4 cents per kilowatt hour. It is true that there may be enough coal in South Africa at present to last 100 or even 200 years, but the fact remains that we also need coal for other commodities. Think of Sasol, think of the chemical processes, the manufacture of artificial fertilizer and the plastics industry. For this reason we must also ensure that our coal supplies are distributed in such a way that they cover the entire spectrum. Nowadays the building costs of a nuclear power station can vary. It can cost 20% and even 50% more than the standard coal burning power station. However, kilogram for kilogram, uranium releases 50 000 times more energy than coal. In its lifetime a typical 1 million kilowatt power station will use between two and three million tons of coal while only 30 tons of uranium fuel will be needed. We are in the fortunate position that South Africa is the third largest producer of uranium in the world. According to the latest annual report of the Atomic Energy Board, on the basis of reclamation costs South Africa has the second largest supply of uranium in the world. Even with the declining price of gold and the overproduction of uranium, under the present circumstances South Africa can remain the most important producer in the world.

Safety plays a very important role at nuclear power stations. Escom’s decision to build the nuclear power station near Cape Town was taken after all the aspects involved had been considered. As a matter of fact, research was done for over 10 years before the final decision was taken, and some of the world’s best and most eminent experts participated in this. It is true that the nuclear energy industry, on its own initiative or via the governments concerned, has introduced the most stringent control measures, because the continued existence of nuclear power depends on safety. As soon as there are safety problems there is a loss of confidence in nuclear power stations. We saw this last year when there were problems at Three Mile Island. When our survival is at stake, we dare not turn our backs on any source of energy. We shall need everything, and for the generation of electricity nuclear power in particular will have to be used because in the long run nuclear power brings savings in oil and gas. Because nuclear power is clean and efficient it will be the decisive factor for the future, and nuclear power will form a part of our way of life.

Mention is made of pollution by nuclear power installations. In contrast, what we sometimes overlook is the pollution by coal burning power stations. I mentioned the figures regarding the tonnage consumed daily by a power station. We can also calculate the amount of gas and ash released. With this we also have the mine defacing the landscape and the storage of waste material at power stations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Alberton gave a very interesting exposition on nuclear energy, especially regarding the short time that it took to build Koeberg, and he did discuss the question of coal versus uranium for electricity production. I want to deal with things more mundane. Firstly, I want to deal with the payment of petrol by credit card. Because the payment of petrol by credit card is no longer possible, the banks have resorted to a cumbersome system whereby the motorist carries a cheque book with specially designed cheques to include the registered number of his car and the make, model and colour and a few other details. Every newspaper has been full of this new cheque idea, which to me is most cumbersome. Each cheque is limited to R50 and when received by the bank is treated as an ordinary personal business cheque. The retail price of petrol is fixed by the hon. the Minister and therefore the various cost contributors all state that their margins do not allow them to carry the burden of credit. The convenience of the motorist is not considered at all.

In the United States of America the oil companies issue their own credit cards. One of the reasons for this is that in the United States no person can be doubly taxed. Therefore, any tax on petrol or gasoline paid by the motorist, is deductible from his total tax at the end of each year. The monthly credit card statements reflects the purchases made as well as the tax so that when the US citizen files his tax form, he attaches his monthly statement and receipts and deducts the tax paid on petroleum products from his total tax payable. Naturally, the credit card holder from one particular oil company can only use the credit card to buy that particular brand of petrol from a service station of that brand. Thus, if one has a Shell petrol credit card one will be able to buy only Shell petrol from a Shell service station. The service station owner would submit his credit card slips to the oil company in question, the processing of the slips would be done just as the banks process their credit card slips every night, and by the start of business the next day, the amount owed by the oil company to each service station would be known. At present all service stations must pay cash on delivery for all petrol delivered. The amount owing by the petrol company would be contraed against the account of a service station. Surely the convenience of the provision of credit cards by oil companies and the work involved is not too much to ask as a quid pro quo by the patient, but maltreated motorist. He can legally use his ordinary credit card to buy anything but petrol, and I think the time has come that the oil companies should do something.

I should now like to deal with the price of petrol. The energy policy objectives include “an uninterrupted energy supply at reasonable cost from both domestic sources and foreign sources”. On page 67 of the excellent annual report for 1981, under Price Adjustments during 1981, it is stated that the second increase on 6 July was brought about, and I quote—

Then a further increase in the basic price of 4,6% per litre was introduced on 1 November, when the rate was 1,05, but then the Equalization Fund was used to cover that. Now the rand/dollar rate has dropped to 0,95 and the price per barrel of crude oil is dropping steadily.

Before I ask the hon. the Minister some questions, I have the Kiplinger Washington Letter dated 12 March, which deals with the oil surplus. It reads, and I quote—

Here comes the point. I further quote—

If that can happen in the United States of America, I have a few questions which I should like to direct to the hon. the Minister, because I think he must tell the country what is in store for them during the coming year. Is the hon. the Minister going to be compelled to fuel the fires of inflation by increasing petrol prices again? Can he tell us if we have old contracts at high prices? Will the coming on stream of Sasol II and Sasol III this year help to contain this price? The anxious motorist awaits the hon. the Minister’s reply with interest.

The next point I should like to deal with is the Nieuwenhuizen Commission’s investigation into compensation for occupational diseases in South Africa. It would be fitting for the hon. the Minister to inform this House how far his department has gone towards instituting the recommendations of the Nieuwenhuizen Report. There is a majority report and a minority report of great importance by Mr. Arrie Paulus of the Mine Worker’s Union, representing the people who actually work in the mines. We, on this side, agree with the hon. member for Boksburg that it has taken far too long for a decision to be taken by the hon. the Minister. We agree compensation should be made uniform for permanent, irreversible, incurable occupational diseases. The problem appears to be if it should be under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the Mines and Works Act. The compensation formula appears to be troublesome and the hon. the Minister’s views are invited. With reference to insurance cover, could not an overall scheme covering the whole mining industry be worked out, similar to the war cover granted to the South African Defence Force soldiers at present? Referring to Clause 9 of the majority recommendations, is it a wise move to allow one third of the pension to be converted into a lump sum payment? Clause 10 is very worrying. Most private pension schemes provide a minimum of 50% of the pension to the widow, and other dependants get 25%. Finally, it does seem strange that a workman has to die before it can be ascertained that he had an occupational disease.

The mining industry is the lifeblood of the South African economy. Everything possible must be done to ensure the good health of all workers, whether they be Black or White. Good health in the mining industry ensures good health in our economy. We trust that the hon. the Minister will deal with this aspect of occupational diseases fully so that our workers in the mines will always be fully safeguarded.

I should like to deal next with surface rehabilitation of open cast coal mines and other mines. The Open Cast Advisory Committee was established in 1976, and I quote—

Mr. Chairman, the supply of arable ground in South Africa is limited. The Department of Agriculture is even worried about the good agricultural land that is being utilized for township purposes. Yet, most of the open cast collieries are situated in the Transvaal Highveld region with its high agricultural potential. It is true that the open casts have been filled in and that top soil has been replaced. On page 27 of the 1981 annual report it states, and I quote—

Mr. Chairman, what little I have seen is certainly not successful land rehabilitation. The soil has been replaced, but quite incorrectly, and with little regard to future farming operations. Even the wrong grasses are used and the number of rocks visible make it look like a mountain. I believe it is high time that the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Agriculture formulate legislation, or some form of regulations, to lay down the standards required for successful rehabilitation. Much of what I have seen will take hundreds of years before it can ever be reverted to agricultural use. Can the South Africa of tomorrow afford to allow the South Africa of today to destroy its heritage?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have time. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I should like to discuss the findings of the Competition Board on explosives and the future of mining in South Africa. The Competition Board report number 9 in effect held that African Explosives and Chemical Industries, the Chamber of Mines, Fedmis and Sasol were all involved in contracts which created an explosives monopoly in South Africa that was not in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I should like to associate myself with the thanks and appreciation conveyed by hon. members on both sides of the House for what the Director-General and staff of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs have achieved over the past year. As one who is very intimately involved with their work, I can assure you that in this group of officials we have a team that serves South Africa’s interests as well as it is possible to serve them. I profoundly appreciate their loyalty and sacrifice and their hard work and I should like to set the minds of the Committee at rest by saying that even though there are some hon. members on that side who are of the opinion that the Minister is not too good, the officials behind him are fortunately men of top calibre, and these officials do an excellent job of seeing to this important department with its extremely wide field of operations.

To begin with I should like to perform a less pleasant task which is yet at the same time a very pleasant one, by referring to three of the major figures in the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs who are to leave the service of the State shortly. I think it is very fitting that I begin by paying tribute briefly to a very well-known figure, Dr. A. J. A. Roux, better known as Dr. Ampie Roux. On 20 July 1970, viz. precisely 12 years ago, give or take a few months, the Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, made an announcement which caused a stir in the world of nuclear science. It was the announcement that South Africa had invented and tested in practice its own technology for the enrichment of uranium. The key figure behind this breakthrough was the atomic energy chief of those times, Dr. A. J. A. Roux. Together with him in the development of the uranium enrichment process was Dr. W. L. Grant, and together these two men received the H. F. Verwoerd prize for this outstanding work. The brilliant career of Dr. Roux, whom it would be justified to describe as the father of nuclear research in South Africa, began many years previously when he was appointed by the Government in 1956 to develop a nuclear research and development programme for South Africa. Dr. Roux progressed from research director of the Atomic Energy Board to, ultimately, the post of president, and from the outset guided the development of the National Nuclear Research Centre. In his time he represented South Africa at several annual and other conferences of the International Atomic Agency, where his opinion was always regarded with the greatest respect. In this country, too, Dr. Ampie Roux, as he was known everywhere, served on several boards and scientific bodies. Inter alia, he was a member of the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council for approximately 17 years and member of the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council for five years. I could continue in this vein. He also led the committee I appointed to investigate the restructuring of nuclear activities in South Africa. It was very fitting that in March 1980 the State paid its highest tribute to him by awarding him the Decoration for Meritorious Service in recognition of his services to South Africa. In this way South Africa evinced its gratitude to one of its talented men who has given so much, over the course of many decades, in the interests of his country. Now. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of all of us in this Committee when I thank Dr. Roux, who is present here today, for his tremendous contribution to the establishment of a nuclear industry in South Africa and everything that that has entailed. I also wish to thank him for his wholehearted co-operation over the years, co-operation with me but also with my predecessors, of whom my late father was one. We also wish to thank him for the fine co-operation with the Department over the years. He and his wife amply deserve the time of rest which is not far off for them now. We wish them many more years of good health, and I shall have the opportunity at a special function to bid him farewell more fittingly on behalf of the department. On this occasion we in this Committee also wish to say to him: “Tot siens”.

We shall also soon be losing the services of Mr. G. C. Barnes, the Government Mining Engineer, on 31 July, after 33 years in the service of the State. Mr. Barnes, Mr. Chairman, will be remembered in particular as one of those officials who has at all times shown the highest loyalty to the Public Service, his colleagues and the mining industry. In the field of health and safety in mines he has made an exceptional contribution. It was with regard to strata control and the danger of explosions in coal mines in particular that he applied his exceptional expertise to great effect, and as chairman or as member he has played a leading role in various safety and research committees in this field. He is the first Government Mining Engineer who has had a predominantly coal mining background and the department was exceptionally fortunate to have had the benefit of his services in the last few years, which have seen a boom period in the coal mining industry. He has laid a sound foundation for further development. In him we are losing a good mining engineer and a faithful official. However, we are grateful for the years of outstanding service he has given the department, and we wish him and his wife a peaceful life and good health.

†Mr. Chairman, in the last instance we are also losing the services of Dr. F. J. Wiles, the director of the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases. After almost 11 years as director of this Medical Bureau, Dr. Wiles will retire from the Public Service on 31 August 1982. He has had a distinguished career of 38 years in the Public Service, the last 16 years of which were at the Medical Bureau. He has always displayed a very high standard of integrity and ethical conduct and because of his devotion to his duties, he has become an internationally accepted and recognized authority on occupational diseases in mines and works.

It is this same devotion that has enabled the Department to persuade him to remain in the service for 18 months beyond his original date of retirement. His departure will be sorely felt by the Department, but we thank him for his loyal services over so many years and we wish him happiness and good health in retirement. I think many of us will also remember that, when we received representations from individual constituents, he always had an open door and in more difficult cases he offered to meet such constituents personally and explain the background of the problem to them. I think for that we all, as MPs, owe him a special word of thanks.

*Mr. Chairman, before replying to some of the speeches by hon. members, for which I want to thank them all at this stage, I have a few announcements to make. Most of these are in the form of report-backs. The hon. members will recall that during the discussion of this department’s Vote in the previous session we discussed at length the export of coal and certain other matters. I should like to put hon. members of the Committee into the picture as regards where we stand with these matters at the moment.

I want to begin with the coal export programme, which is exciting wide interest at the moment. Hon. members will recall that during the Vote last year I announced that the Government had decided to increase the level of coal exports to 80 million tons for 30 years. In essence, what this amounted to was that coal exports were increased from the previous approved maximum level of 48 million tons per annum by an additional 32 million tons per annum. Since then, more than 100 applications have been received applying for the exportation of more than 200 million tons of coal per annum. I wish to announce today that the evaluation of these applications has been completed. It was a monumental task. I want to thank the department for this and congratulate them on the record time in which they did so. I can attest to the fact that it has been thoroughly done. The successful applicants will probably be notified this month or, at the latest, very early next month.

In the formulation of the specific guidelines for the assessment of applications, the achievement of overall energy policy objectives was the point of departure, and the golden thread running through all was the optimum utilization of our coal reserves. However, that was not the only focus of our strategy. On the contrary, our planning extended far wider, since other national objectives such as regional development, decentralization, creation of employment opportunities and so on were taken into account.

It was decided to implement the phasing in of the additional 32 million tons, or phase IV of the coal export programme, as it is generally referred to, in two steps. In phase IVa, 25 million tons of coal, of which the individual export allocations are basically being disposed of now, would be allocated per annum. Phase IVb consists of 7 million tons per annum, concerning which allocations will be announced at a later stage.

It must be pointed out that export allocations will only be a provisional concession, and only after the prospective exporter has complied with certain conditions will an export permit be issued to him. The existing conditions have been revised, and a new set of conditions has been agreed to by the Cabinet. It is envisaged that these conditions will also be applied to existing exporters, and since the provisional concessions apply for a period of as long as 30 years, I am retaining for the State the right to amend these conditions in accordance with circumstances and in consultation with the exporters. If exporters were to fail to meet the conditions, the export concessions in question could be withdrawn. The conditions for the issue of coal export permits that will now come into force are closely related to the guidelines followed in the allocation of the provisional export concession and geared to the following, inter alia: The optimization of exploitable reserves by limiting the export concession to a specific mine; the availability at all times of adequate supplies of coal of the required grade for domestic consumption; protection of the environment, particularly with regard to the recovery of mined surfaces; protection against market disruption by unco-ordinated marketing practices; the optimization of infrastructural services; and the granting of financial assistance on guarantee to the South African Transport Services for the financing of the necessary rail transport and harbour facilities, where required.

†Mr. Chairman, allow me to refer now to some of the aspects which were taken into account in the allocation of the 25 million tons. Firstly, the availability of coal for the generation of electricity was considered and a major share of the allocation was dedicated to the optimization of existing collieries supplying or contracted to supply Escom. The aim, wherever possible, was to facilitate the establishment of multiproduct mines where it is possible to cream off a better quality coal which can be exported at higher prices and thereby contribute to lower overall coal costs for electricity generation. Export allocations will be in favour of specific mines that will be selected by the mine organizations involved in co-operation with Escom. An acceptable renegotiated contract between the relevant parties will be a prerequisite for an export permit.

Specific cases were also identified where the allocation of an export permit would enable a producer to develop open cast mines rather than underground collieries, thus making significantly increased tonnages of coal available to Escom in future and, may I add, tonnages of coal to South Africa.

National, regional and co-operation objectives were also afforded the necessary attention. A significant share of the phase IVa allocation was aimed at the development of rural and outlying areas in the Republic and areas in and around the Black states. The areas concentrated on, were selected in consultation with the Office of the Prime Minister and are as follows: In the Republic of South Africa, the Belfast-Carolina-Breyton area in the Transvaal and the NewcastleVryheid area in Natal were selected, while in KwaZulu the area surrounding Richards Bay was selected.

In the Eastern Transvaal this will most probably result in the establishment of new mines with the attendant generation of employment opportunities and regional development. In Natal it may result in the increased lifespan of the typical smaller Natal colliery and in KwaZulu it may result in the establishment of one or more collieries with the attendant advantages.

The optimization of reserves in existing collieries in the Springs-Witbank coalfields was also considered. A part of the phase IVa allocation was dedicated to the optimization of reserves of mines in the Highveld areas, which already have access to existing loading and railway facilities. In most instances, only relatively small tonnages could be allocated as a result of the limited overall availability of export coal.

The allocation of additional export concessions for waste coal, or permit coal as it henceforth will be known, was also given due attention. Significant tonnages of this type of coal were allocated on a preliminary basis. A number of categories of such coal were identified, namely: Waste coal in dumps, which is presently causing severe environmental pollution; coal midlings which is a by-product in the production of a primary beneficiated product and which cannot be sold locally; high-ash anthracite, which is also not saleable locally, but which has a ready market in the East; and coal in worked out areas which may lead to the sterilization of large areas around urban areas, due to surface subsidence and pollution of surface and subterranean water.

In these cases and in similar meritorious cases, concessions will be granted to export such coal. However, permission will also be subject to the enumerated set of conditions and care will be exercised to ensure that the export of such coal will not influence coal export prices detrimentally. Export limitation for such coal might also become necessary.

As a considerable number of coal producers will be entering the international coal market, I must caution against unacceptable and destabilizing marketing practices which may lead to market distortion. Indeed, I would most sincerely welcome efforts towards the co-ordinated export marketing of coal within the framework of the free market system.

In conclusion I would like to point out that present planning of the Republic’s coal export programme through Richards Bay is aimed to achieve phase III, which amounts to 44 million tons per year, by approximately 1986 or 1987. Consequently, it can be expected that the major part of phase IV, namely 44 million tons plus 4 million tons presently being exported through Durban and Maputo, plus 25 million tons—that is a total of 73 million tons—will probably only be achieved towards the end of the decade.

The remaining 7 million tons of phase IV, which forms phase IVb, will be allocated on an ad hoc basis. The main objective with the additional allocation will be to promote further coal beneficiation at collieries supplying Escom and to promote the viability of outlying and undeveloped coalfields for power generation. Announcements in this regard can thus be expected as Escom’s power station programme proceeds.

*Mr. Chairman, in conjunction with this there is another commodity concerning which applicants are anxiously awaiting the outcome of their applications, to see who gets which concessions. This commodity is diamonds, that attractive commodity which makes people’s eyes sparkle. Due to the successes achieved over the past few years in the field of marine diamond prospecting the Government decided, as hon. members will recall, to make additional marine areas on the West Coast available to prospective prospectors and to give everyone who complied with the necessary requirements in regard to expertise and financial means, an equal opportunity to apply. As in the case of coal, the applications we received far exceeded the regions we had to allocate. An advisory diamond development committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice L. de V. van Winsen was established in November 1980. All the available areas of which the description and borders had been determined by the committee were advertised in the Gazette and in the daily press on 14 July 1981. A total of 515 applications in respect of 40 areas were received up to the closing date, 23 October 1981. As may be inferred from the large number of applications, the interest in these marine areas is considerably greater than was initially expected. Due to the quantity of work and the time the committee had to spend on the matter by way of meetings, a method of expediting the consideration somewhat was found, and by the use of this new method the committee is making good progress. Provisional indications are that the committee will be capable of assessing the applications finally in June.

†Mr. Chairman, I now come to some of the subjects to which we have had some reference during the debate. Firstly I want to refer to the question of synthetic fuels and developments in that regard. Following my announcement in February 1980 in which I stated the Government’s views on the use of alcohols and other fuels produced from indigenous raw materials for the purpose of augmenting and replacing petroleum fuels, I would like to report on the progress made in this direction.

Firstly, it is perhaps necessary to briefly reiterate the decisions taken during 1980. Hon. members will recall that the Government introduced the concept of uniform excise and other duties which should apply to all liquid motor fuels produced from indigenous raw materials. The basis on which these duties are calculated, is an energy basis. This has been generally accepted as a fair and justifiable approach. For example, the energy content of methanol for a given volume is only half that of petrol. Secondly, the Government announced that duties and levies on liquid motor fuels, produced from indigenous raw materials, would be lower than that payable on fuels produced from imported crude oil. This incentive would also be calculated in accordance with the energy value of the fuel. Furthermore, the Government announced that consideration would be given to increasing the incentive in respect of the replacement of diesel fuel.

The philosophy underlying the approach by the Government is clearly to encourage the production of liquid motor fuels by the private sector. I invited potential producers to make proposals to the Government and I allowed an initial period for the submission of applications in order to determine the nature and extent of incentives which would then apply. The aim is to determine the lowest level of incentives which will then apply to all producers. Factors such as the applicant’s proven ability in terms of knowledge and experience of the technology, methods of production and logistics of distribution were to be taken into account together with estimates of costs of production and distribution.

As a result of the abovementioned approach, the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs has considered several proposals from the private sector and there has been frequent and fruitful liaison between the Department and potential producers. It is clearly evident to me that a considerable effort has been made and is still being made to investigate the technical and economic aspects of producing and utilizing synthetic fuels in South Africa. In some cases significant research expenditure has been incurred in the process of developing suitable alternative fuels, especially for the augmentation of diesel and I wish to express, on behalf of the Government, my sincere appreciation for the fine effort and interest shown by these organizations in heeding the pleas of the Government in this regard.

The numerous discussions and proposals thus far have indicated that the extension or replacement of conventional fuels by synthetic fuels produced by the private sector, in terms of practical implementation, is fraught with problems and not easily resolved.

The Energy Policy Committee has given attention to the aforementioned and has recommended that my Department should address certain issues which still need to be resolved. These issues include the determination of possible avenues for State aid towards the future financing of large essentially private sector synthetic fuels projects and studying various market, distribution and price related problems.

In the light of the current world oil glut, it may well be asked why the Government is concerned with stimulating the production of liquid fuel from indigenous sources of energy. My answer is that it would be wrong to be lulled into a sense of complacency, especially since the lead times, that is the time from the decision to build the plant until full production capability is reached, for large synthetic fuels projects may be longer than five years. The relatively easier availability of crude oil has meant that we need not be rushed into a decision, especially with regard to the possible use of new yet commercially unproven technology for coal conversion to liquid fuels and this minor relief can fruitfully be employed, by the Government as well as the private sector, to explore the matter further.

The Energy Policy Committee has made recommendations regarding medium to long term liquid fuel self-sufficiency. If a policy of increased self-sufficiency is adopted by the Government after due consideration of other strategic and economic priorities, which is basically the philosophy of the Government, it means that a decision to build a further Sasel-sized plant would need to be taken in the near future. Although a significant degree of self-sufficiency will be achieved by the completion of Sasol III, it should be realized that the growth in the demand of liquid fuel, which is associated with our economic growth, erodes the attained level of self-sufficiency.

With regard to improving the technology of coal conversion, much research is being done worldwide and overseas reports purport that new oil-from-coal technologies are superior to the Sasol process which is presently being used. However, no commercially proven processes, other than the Sasol process, exist at present and we must realize that the risk associated with commercializing these new processes is extremely high. The decision as to which technology to utilize in future oil-from-coal plants is a major decision that will ultimately have to be taken.

There are a number of possible synthetic fuel routes open to South Africa, namely the Sasol oil-from-coal process, the process whereby the alcohols, ethanol and methanol, are derived from coal or agricultural products; the process whereby plant oils such as sun-flower-derived oil are used, as well as other oil from coal processes. However, none of these are yet commercialized. At the present time it is not possible to give a firm indication as to which future route, or combination of routes, would be in the best interests of our country. In the light of the submitted proposals from the private sector and the latest available evidence, a departmental subcommittee of the Energy Policy Committee is studying this issue and may be in a position to advise on further aspects later this year.

*Mr. Chairman, the final aspect I want to deal with before beginning to refer more specifically to speeches of hon. members concerns the issue of the hours during which petrol is sold. Hon. members are aware that we have a permit system at the moment. In accordance with specific guidelines which developed in line with the practical implementation of the permit system, anyone can apply for a permit in an emergency situation. Then, if he is able to find a garage owner prepared to give him petrol, he can obtain petrol after hours. We have considered this system carefully. There were considerable growth pains, we encountered several administrative problems and found that this caused a heavy workload. In line with our policy of eliminating unnecessary administration and red tape, the Government decided to amend the regulations relating to the conservation of petroleum products and to do away with the permit system for sales after hours. That is the good news.

Unfortunately, since we still have to conserve fuel we cannot simply do away with this and go back to the good old days when one could fill up at any time of the day or night. It has been ascertained by tests carried out over the past number of years that the permit system does not result in journeys being cancelled. At most, journeys are postponed. It has been found that it is not implemented uniformly, and this gives rise to great dissatisfaction. It has been found that malpractices have developed with regard to fuel sales and that the acquisition of permits has caused motorists inconvenience and delay. It has also been found that a considerable administrative burden has been placed on a limited number of staff, particularly in the public sector, and during certain peak periods we have had to have trained people sitting at tables considering the validity of permits and dealing with the forms. In view of our manpower situation in South Africa we cannot afford this. It has also been found that many permits are simply applied for as a precautionary measure and are not used.

In consultation with the authoritative and interested organizations in the private sector, the following arrangement has now been agreed on: The permits are being done away with, but a compulsory service fee of R5 per transaction outside the prescribed hours will in future be payable. However, bulk intakes at the depots of oil companies remain unchanged, and official selling hours will, as in the past, be extended during peak periods such as Christmas time, Easter weekends and elections, and the normal cost of petrol will apply in those instances. Therefore the levy will not be payable in those instances.

The organized filling station industry, commerce and industry, motorists associations and oil companies have been consulted in regard to this decision. The initial misgivings on the part of some of these bodies were accommodated by making suitable arrangements. However, there are bodies that are of the opinion that the levy or its extent is not justified and that the ordinary market mechanism should determine whether a filling station should remain open or not.

Without replying at length to these arguments here I may just mention that the choice of whether to make use of this service rests with the public. No one need pay a R5 levy if he continues to fill his tank within the normal hours, as he does now. We have also found that over the past number of years the fuel intake has dropped due to the fact that the range of cars had increased considerably as a result of improved fuel economy and larger standard tanks. Therefore it is no longer necessary to fill up as regularly as in the past.

The production sector can still obtain fuel at the depots of oil companies without paying the levy. This ought not, therefore, to be inflationary in the sense of adding additional costs to any prices. The R5 levy is only based on the increased operating costs of filling stations caused by rendering service after hours, in this way avoiding a higher retail margin and increased fuel prices.

Do they keep the R5?

Yes, they keep the R5.

*Mr. Chairman, I shall give further details of this arrangement on a later occasion. The amendment of the regulations will be effected by the middle of June and up to the date of the Government notice to authorize the new arrangement, the existing regulations will remain unchanged.

At this point, however, I want to make this very clear: It is not the intention to deviate from the existing pattern of fuel sales. This arrangement that is now being envisaged is an effort to meet a specific need of the motorist in an efficient way in cases where he is obliged, in exceptional circumstances, to obtain fuel after the specified hours of sale. If this arrangement were to lead to the exploitation of the public, or if fuel consumption were to increase as a result of this arrangement, the whole matter would have to be revised.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to refer to hon. members who have taken part in the debate thus far. If I am unable to reply to their contributions in detail at this stage I shall come back to some of their proposals and representations in more detail on another occasion in this debate when I speak again.

I want to begin by referring to hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Namakwaland, the chairman of the study group for mineral and energy affairs, proved once again this afternoon, through his contribution, that he makes a study of his subject. He presented a very interesting survey in regard to energy and the mineral industry. He discussed our strong points and our problems, and in particular stressed the importance and usefulness of research and what we are doing in that regard. I should like to thank him sincerely for a constructive contribution, which showed that he speaks with authority about his subject, and I want to thank him for the hard work he has done and for the contributions outside this House in regard to the activities of this department. Sir, the hon. member for Rustenburg linked up very neatly with the speech of the hon. member for Namakwaland. In particular he focused on the interests of the farmer and the need for a balance between the holder of mineral rights and the surface owner. I am pleased that he indicated that the Goverment was sympathetic towards the farmer and that he stressed the fine balance we have achieved in our effort to reconcile the interests of both interest groups in a meaningful way—a difficult challenge that faced us.

I also wish to point out to hon. members of the committee a whole series of improvements in the position of the farmer that have been introduced over the past number of years and in which the Government’s concern about the position of the farmer, who may be detrimentally affected by mining activities, is clearly reflected. I thank the hon. member and the hon. member for Randfontein who, as he did last year, singled out a very important aspect of the mineworker and his needs and problems. He referred to what he called a “deficiency” in the remuneration package of mineworkers. In this regard he referred in a responsible way to the Nieuwenhuizen report. I want to assure him that we shall give very earnest attention to his representations in conjuction with the Nieuwenhuizen report and the comment we are awaiting at the moment in this regard. He will understand that at this stage, since there is still time until 15 June to comment, it is difficult for me to react, state personal standpoints or even make any effort to formulate the standpoint of the Government in this regard. However, as regards the argument that no provision is made for the mine-worker who has worked throughout his life and has never been certified for some form of sickness, an aspect which was clearly singled out by the Nieuwenhuizen report, I just wish to add that I should appreciate it if all interested parties who submit representations would focus on this point in reaction to the invitation to do so, and give us the benefit of their opinions in this regard. In this way we shall be able to assess the Nieuwenhuizen report in a balanced and informed manner on the basis of the reaction of the employer, employees’ organizations and other interested bodies to this important question which was raised in the Nieuwenhuizen report. The hon. member for Randfontein effectively underlined and focused on this problem in the course of his contribution.

The hon. member for Alberton gave us a good summary of the most important aspects relating to Koeberg and nuclear power. He made out a good case for Koeberg and for that I wish to thank him sincerely. The hon. member for Witbank quite rightly reproached the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for not having taken the trouble to express a word of thanks in this regard.

I now wish to come to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan. One could divide his speech into a positive part and a negative part. As far as the positive part—which is also the smaller part—is concerned, I wish to thank the hon. member for Brakpan, but I must say that he has disappointed me further. I had not thought I would see the day when the hon. member for Brakpan could be more sour than a Prog in his approach to the years of positive handling of the interests of the mineworker by the National Party.

We are not sour.

After all, the hon. member has a long history which attests to how he went from platform to platform defending the record of the National Party as regards their handling of the interests of the mineworker. All that has happened since the hon. member left the National Party is that the Nieuwenhuizen Report has been tabled. Nothing else has happened. There has been absolutely no physical, factual development which could have given the hon. member any grounds whatsoever to suggest that the National Party will act any differently to the way it has acted in the past.

But where did I attack the National Party?

The hon. member did suggest it.

I merely commented on the report.

No, the hon. member referred to murderers and inheritors and dragged politics into the matter. I shall not deviate from the arrangement that we may not talk politics, but he must just allow me to say that he must not blame the National Party for the suicide they committed and then convert that into a murder. His reference to the Nieuwenhuizen Report was of course negative. He said that he deplored the delay in tabling the report. On what grounds does he contend that it was delayed? What does he mean by delay? Does he mean that the National Party sat on the report or deliberately filed the report away somewhere in a dust-cover because it does not have the interests of the mineworker at heart? Would he dispute it if I were to say that we had the report processed as rapidly as possible after receiving it initially in an unprepared, typed form, that there were difficulties with the translation and that we tabled it as soon as possible? He did not ask whether there were difficulties in connection with tabling the report; he simply drew the conclusion that it was delayed. That is what I mean by a negative approach.

He went on to shoot down a whole series of matters. He, too, still has the opportunity until 15 June to state his case. I may just mention that a committee of the National Party is subjecting the Nieuwenhuizen Report to a scientific, in-depth examination and will submit orderly and appropriate representations to us. I want to say to the hon. member, in all friendliness, that we shall regard his speech, too, as a representation from him and his party. He is welcome to add anything else if he wishes. However, he will understand that as I also said to the hon. member for Randfontein, I cannot anticipate what the Government may decide or say what I personally feel about it, at least until I have perused to the representations I receive and studied them in conjunction with the content and argumentation in the report itself. I am therefore keeping an absolutely open mind about this matter and I wish to give everyone as much opportunity as possible to put their case. Actually it is a pity that the hon. member could not have shown as much appreciation in taking cognizance of the fact that representations were called for, as did the Mineworkers’ Union in its official journal.

I want to give the general assurance that the National Party will not act towards the mineworker in an unfair way but will stand by the high premium it places on the contribution made by these people in the interests of everyone in South Africa. We shall see to it and ensure that they are fairly treated and we shall endeavour to find the best possible dispensation that can be justified. If there is a better alternative than the existing dispensation, the NP will consider it, but over-hasty action will not be taken. Their interests will certainly be looked after effectively.

Basically the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central touched on four points. I shall deal with some of them now.

†Firstly he referred to nuclear development. He highlighted the amount provided for in the budget of this Department and apparently drew some negative conclusions from this fact. I think it is necessary to have some perspective on this amount. I just want to give him a few figures, viz. what Escom will have to spend just for additional power generation capacity in the next number of years, to give him some perspective on the amounts involved in energy creation. In 1982 they will spend R1 283 million just on new power stations capacity. It is estimated that in 1983 it will be R1 558 million, in 1984 R2 035 million, in 1985 R2 447 million and in 1986 R3 278 million—and so I could continue. In 1990 it is estimated to be in excess of R5 000 million.

Surely the money does not come from taxation?

That is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether it is in South Africa’s interests to make provision in this year’s budget for approximately R300 million for nuclear power and research into nuclear power.

Is it economic?

I am merely trying to strike a balance.

Secondly, with reference to his argument in this connection, I want to say that all the money spent on this is not, of course, directly invested in the supply of power. Surely it is in South Africa’s interests that we should acquire a broader knowledge of nuclear power, that the AEB should exist and that we should have developed our own enrichment process, which is of course expensive. In particular it is in South Africa’s interests that apart from the commodity of uranium, we should also possess the necessary associated technology. If we do not possess this technology, our dependence on the rest of the world will not diminish but will remain constant. In other words, as in the case of Sasol, we have here an activity of the State which will leave us not entirely vulnerable in a time of crisis. The hon. member had better realize that we are not experiencing a crisis only because the NP is in power. [Interjections.] I can assure him that if they were ever to come to power, something which fortunately will not happen, circumstances could arise in which this country would be just as grateful that we can make our own petrol from oil, that we can generate our own power and that we have a Koeberg and an enrichment process of our own that will ensure that in times of crisis we shall not be entirely vulnerable. Therefore I wish to say that the money being spent on nuclear research is not money which must be weighed in a direct economic comparison with how much it costs to generate 1 megawatt of power from coal, for example, because there are other costs in connection with the broader acquisition of the technology that is so essential.

The second question he asked in this regard was whether we were going to build more nuclear power stations. As I have already replied in clear terms to parliamentary questions, no definite decisions have been taken in this regard. Broad, general background investigations have been carried out. When we reach the phase at which we can consider this, we shall make specific announcements in this regard.

When do you think that will be?

No, I cannot quantify that. The fact remains that we do not exclude the possibility of additional nuclear power stations and that we shall bear in mind the important aspect stressed by the hon. member, viz. the question whether or not it would be economically wise to build a second one, when we consider it. That will be an important element in our assessment.

The hon. member went on to refer to the question of radio-active waste.

†In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I should like to give him certain specific details. As a result of normal operations and maintenance approximately 200 cubic metres of low and intermediate activity radio-active waste is produced by each Koeberg reactor. This waste material is normally sealed in stainless steel drums or cast in concrete and buried in relatively shallow ditches in a suitable storage area. High-activity waste results from the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. In terms of the agreement with France spent fuel will not be reprocessed in South Africa although approximately 4 cubic metres of high-activity waste per year will be returned to South Africa for storage. This will, however, occur only in ten years’ time. High-activity waste can also result should a fuel element become defective and facilities are being created by the Atomic Energy Board to securely handle such material should it become necessary.

*I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall act just as circumspectly in this regard as we did in the planning and construction of Koeberg. Just as we have set the hon. member’s mind at rest— and I am pleased and grateful that he said that here today—about the safety of Koeberg, we shall satisfy him as regards this radio-active waste when we reach the stage of practical implementation. We are giving very careful attention to this matter.

Perhaps this is also the appropriate moment to refer to the date on which the Koeberg nuclear power-station will be commissioned. Escom has succeeded in obtaining the fuel for Koeberg from sources other than those originally planned. The delivery of the fuel will, however, be somewhat later than was originally planned. This will mean that fuel will only be able to be loaded later than was scheduled. Everything practicable is nevertheless being done to reduce any possible delay to a minimum, taking into account the requirements of the licensing procedures. Koeberg 1 ought to come into full operation during the first half of 1983. If it is borne in mind that such delays frequently occur and that this is the first nuclear power station to be built in Africa, the possible minor delay to which I have just referred cannot be regarded as exceptional, but I do feel that I want to indicate even at this stage that some minor delay is expected.

The hon. member concluded by referring to the question of the “non-proliferation agreement”.

†The situation in this regard remains as set out in my replies to questions which the hon. members raised. This aspect is receiving constant attention, and discussions are taking place and I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in public about this.

*After this the hon. member turned to Escom. He asked why more hydro-electric schemes were not being introduced. I may come back to this later, but at this point I just wish to make the general statement that we must realize that we are experiencing an explosion in the demand for electrical power. For that reason I am tempted to say that the big ones are needed now, the 3 600 megawatt stations that can provide power as soon as possible. In the process, consideration is being given to the economies of scale and the manpower situation, and how best to utilize this. As far as hydro-electric schemes in South Africa are concerned, it is also the case that there is an interdependence between our activities and the infrastructure, such as the building of the necessary dams. The availability of capital and manpower to complete dams at a specific time determines the capacity to produce hydro-electric power. Therefore there are several imponderables which have to be taken into account. On the face of it, it could perhaps seem that not enough attention is being given to this. However I want to give the hon. member the assurance that hydro-electric power is important to us. It is good, clean power which has certain additional advantages and accordingly we are not negatively disposed to it. At this stage it is a question of priorities that have to be faced. Moreover, the fact is that South Africa’s specific water situation imposes a limitation on its capacity to generate hydro-electric power.

The hon. member referred to the question of the uniform tariff. I just wish to correct him. I did not say that we were going to have a uniform tariff, but that we were moving in the direction of a uniform tariff. Thereby I also indicated that the question of diversified tariffs was a problem that was not only being experienced in the field of electricity supply but also related to various other aspects, and that an all-embracing and co-ordinated investigation into this whole question ought to be launched. I did envisage that we would in the interim consider further equalization and the reduction of the differences, and how we could move in that direction without disrupting the normal market mechanisms. In this regard I just wish to report to hon. members of the Committee that I have held in-depth discussions with Escom and the Electricity Control Board in this regard and that the matter is not being neglected. Careful consideration is indeed being given to this matter.

The hon. member went on to say that subsidies would fall away if we were to introduce a uniform tariff. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Namakwaland quite rightly pointed out to him that someone else would have to pay for that. Therefore it will no longer entail a subsidy by the State to the consumer in the remote districts, but a subsidy paid by the large-scale user in the PWV area, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town to the platteland. The question we must address our minds to is how to co-ordinate the interests of the people in the platteland and reconcile them with the interests of the present large-scale user—and we do not want the platteland to be depopulated, and we want them to have a modern facility like electricity. We are giving very careful consideration to that.

I can get cheaper mealies.

Oh, I do not know whether mealies have very much to do with electricity. Most of our mealies are planted and usually cultivated with the aid of solar power, which the hon. member is so excited about.

Apart from what I have already said about alternate sources of energy, I just wish to say in general to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that solar power does of course hold tremendous possibilities for the future. All these other alternatives to which they have referred are being given attention, but not as much as they want them to have. The fact remains that with our limited resources we must get our priorities straight in this country. We cannot try to be in the forefront, as we are with Sasol, in respect of every last alternative energy commodity in the world. I want to give the assurance that apart from the basic research being carried out into our solar-power, wind-power, wave-power, biomass and all the other alternatives, we are also, carefully and with thoroughness, keeping abreast of the tremendous range of research being carried out abroad with regard to these same matters, research which costs vast sums of money. There is sound co-ordination to ensure that while they are trying to discover one wheel, we are not trying to discover the same wheel, but instead that we utilize our resources to best effect. This is not being neglected, and within the total framework of priorities of the State in regard to scientific research, very careful attention is given to every man who thinks that his idea is the most important, to make a case of it. The mechanism for the determination of priorities is a carefully developed one which has proved itself over the course of many decades to be truly effective, as is evident from some of our fine scientific monuments today.

The hon. member, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well, went on to speak about the oil price. In this regard I really do not want to speak at length. In the first place I want to say that the substantial drop in the prices does not always provide a true reflection of what is in fact going on in the oil market. The greatest publicity is given to what goes on in the spot market, as it is called, whereas I think that this only supplies approximately 5% of the total world demand for oil. The rest, more than 90%, is supplied by way of contracts negotiated to extend over terms. It is true that the “spot price” has an influence on the contract price of oil, but that influence always follows somewhat later and is not normally as dramatic. I want to give hon. members the assurance that we have had some measure of success in benefiting from the falling oil price, despite the fact that we had made provision for oil to be supplied to South Africa by way of term contracts and despite the fact that to an even greater extent than in the past we are adopting the wise course of ensuring diversified sources of oil supply to South Africa. If it had not been for this use of the falling price, the petrol price increase would have been dramatically higher than it in fact was. I am sorry for those hon. members because they have to make politics out of this, but I really want to say to them that at the time of the last increase we had virtually no criticism from outside, because everyone had thought that the increase would be higher, due to the exchange rate situation that deteriorated so rapidly. On the contrary, according to informed circles there is appreciation for the fact that we were able to limit the increase to the extent that it was indeed limited.

I now turn to the speech by the hon. member for Durban North. He tried to act the prophet. Next year, when we discuss the historic facts of what in fact happened to the gold price, we shall be able to see whether the hon. member is a better gold price adviser than he is a politician. I want to tell him that for South Africa’s sake I hope that he is just as wide of the mark with his predictions of the gold price as he is wide of the mark politically in the party of which he is a member.

We cannot be wrong on both counts.

I just want to say in general that I think he is a little bit too gloomy, which becomes evident if one looks at the creation of job opportunities in the mining sector. I note that he listened carefully when I made my announcement concerning coal export allocations. He will realize that our decisions in that regard will have a dynamic effect on the creation of job opportunities and that the basis on which we intend making coal export allocations has shown our sensitivity towards the very problem which he has underlined. However, in the meantime I assure him that we have carefully noted his comments regarding the question of assistance to the mines. There is a commission, to which he has referred, which is actually sitting in this regard, and it is even more difficult to anticipate this commission than in the case of the Nieuwenhuizen report, on which we are still awaiting comment. We will refer his contribution to this commission so that it can also give careful consideration to the validity of his argumentation in that regard.

*I do not think it would be correct of me at this stage to anticipate the work of the committee and initiate a dispute in this regard unnecessarily.

The hon. member was somewhat clever and one gained the impression that he was perhaps trying to insinuate that the real problem in the mining industry was also the Government’s fault, like everything else, but I want to tell him that the real problem in the mining industry is to be found in the poor state of the economy of our chief trading partners. Imports by America, Britain and the whole of Europe have dropped fairly drastically. Fortunately, the rate of exchange situation in this connection is, in general, in our favour; otherwise the existing low demand situation in the mining industry could have hit us a great deal harder. I shall deal later with the hon. member’s specific allegation that there is something wrong in the statistics somewhere and that official sources differ from one another, and inform him in that regard.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the fact that we are both a First and a Third World country.

†I think he highlighted this fact effectively and he delivered an interesting dissertation. He pleaded for more research. I think I have already replied to his argument concerning renewable resources. He pleaded for the provision of coal to the outlying districts where wood is being used at the moment and suggested that the subsidization of the transport of coal to those areas might be a solution. As long as wood is available free of charge I doubt whether coal will be bought for the same purpose to which wood can be put, whether that coal is subsidized or not. We have a problem in that regard. I think this is a marvellous field for the private sector to investigate. We know that very high ash coal is formed into briquettes. It is the popular conductor of energy in areas such as Korea. The private sector can look into this and market this. The Government does not market nor mine coal. We are not directly involved in the coal business in any way whatsoever. We are an important partner, ofcourse, in the sense that we do get a percentage of the income.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout firstly raised the question of credit cards.

*I now want to ask him, Mr. Chairman whether he thinks that is fair. I share his concern about the convenience of the motorist. We do not want him to carry roles of notes to enable him to fill up when he undertakes a long journey or goes on holiday. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proved that only a small minority of all motorists used credit cards to purchase fuel before this was repealed. The majority do in fact pay cash. We were then faced with the dilemma that the bodies controlling credit cards—the banks—were suffering heavy losses on the credit cards and had to recover those losses somehow. The hon. member for Yeoville is shaking his head.

They deliberately encouraged the people to use them, for advertising purposes, so that people could become accustomed to using their credit cards.

That is a very interesting observation.

It is true.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that they were no longer prepared to continue with the credit card system unless the trader paid them a levy as in the case of all other traders that accept credit cards for lunches, flowers or whatever. They sought a solution. For our part we had the situation that if we were to permit this, it would begin to contribute an input into the cost structure of garages, and this would have had to be reflected in the next determining of the fuel price. If we were to reflect it in the price of fuel a majority of the purchasers of fuel would have had to subsidize the minority who had credit cards. When I speak of a minority, then surely it is in general the privileged minority that have credit cards, the more well-off people in the high-income group, and it is the less well-off people who do not have credit cards. This would mean that the poor would subsidize the rich. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is true, but we know that those hon. members do not have much sensitivity for the poor. It is we who have that sensitivity. We then said that we wanted to provide this facility on a basis that would not result in price increases and which would not compel the person who wanted to pay cash, to pay more. Therefore we thought that the private sector should itself find a way, so that the man who has the benefit of the facility, the credit card holder, would himself pay for that facility, which I think was a very fair approach.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I shall give the hon. member a chance in a moment. The private sector accepted the challenge and now the hon. member does not like the solution they put forward. It was not our solution. Nor was the credit card our formula. These are private sector matters, and we bent over backwards and took endless trouble in this Department to ensure that a way could be found to provide that facility in a way which would not increase costs.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that it is a legitimate business practice to use a credit card as a promotion so as to get people used to using credit cards. When one has made them used to using a credit card one stops the promotion and say one is now going to make a profit on it. Does the hon. the Minister think that this is a proper and legitimate business practice?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has put a very interesting question, but I am not standing here as an advocate for the banks or anyone else in connection with this matter. The hon. member is most welcome to attack the banks if he thinks that they have done wrong, but then he must motivate his case. However, I just wish to say to him that I have consistently refused to drag fuel control measures into the kind of dispute that he is raising now. My attitude has always been that people must find a practical way of buying fuel so that they do not need to carry rolls of notes around. At the same time, however, I do not want to permit anything that increases costs, because I want to keep the fuel price as low as possible. I welcome the fact that the private sector is now coming forward with alternatives, and if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout feels that the solution for one particular group is not a good solution, then he must have confidence in the system of private initiative and he must say that another group will now come forward with a better system. However, I wish to level a warning in this regard because I do not want to permit the establishment of a system which will cause anyone to pass the garage that is more conveniently situated, to go and fill up at another garage 10 kilometres further because they accept his card while the other garage does not accept it. Accordingly, it was a general demand on our part that the system implemented should be such that it would not lead to unnecessary waste of fuel in any way.

I have almost finished. The hon. member dealt with several matters. I have already discussed the price of fuel and the Nieuwenhuizen Report. He and I were probably at two different open cast mines. At the open cast mine where I was, the rehabilitation was impressive. It was very scientifically done and highly qualified experts were employed on an on-going basis to ensure that the rehabilitation was effected as effectively as was humanly possible. The topsoil was replaced and the place looks better to me than it did before, to judge from photos and films shown to me. Already good grazing is visible, and therefore I think that the agricultural value of that land that was restored has not been reduced; on the contrary, it may even have been increased. What did in fact happen is that it was taken out of circulation temporarily and the benefit derived from the land by taking that soil out of circulation temporarily, measured in terms of money, is enormous. Therefore I do not think that the hon. member should be negative about this. If he brings to our attention any case where the rehabilitation of the environment at an open cast mine or any other mine is not being carried out effectively, I can assure him that the Department will consider it very critically, will follow it up and investigate it and that we shall make use of all the powers at our disposal to ensure that it is indeed effectively done.

Mr. Chairman, to start with I should like to associate myself with the kind remarks the hon. the Minister directed to Dr. Roux, Mr. Barnes and Dr. Wiles.

I should just like to return to the hon. member for Brakpan, who in the cynical manner which has become so characteristic of him nowadays, referred to the energetic hon. Minister. However, I just want to say that we are extremely proud of this energetic hon. Minister and, in particular, of the way in which he carries out his ministerial duties. I want to add that in recent times we have come to know him as a very dynamic political leader of the party in the Transvaal. I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that it is a pity that he cannot experience this dynamic leadership in the National Party in the Transvaal. Perhaps he would then not be in the dilemma in which he now finds himself.

The key role that energy plays today in the destiny of South Africa and the West cannot be over-emphasized. This fact was underlined when the world was plunged into the oil crisis in 1973. The oil crisis helped to bring home the truth of limited raw materials and it showed how a source of energy could be used to achieve specific political or economic goals. The communist onslaught on Southern Africa must also be seen against the background of the power struggle to control the world’s scarce energy and other resources. It is also an accepted fact that energy resources keep the wheels of our modern technological society turning. In Western economies in particular energy has now become an important element of economic planning. Energy is such a basic factor in any modern economy that its total consumption is linked directly to the national income. Therefore whoever has control of dwindling energy resources can determine the pace of development.

However, the presence of energy and mineral resources in a country is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is to develop those resources, to utilize them and to supply them to foreign buyers. It is this factor that distinguishes South Africa from other minerally rich countries that are politically unstable and technologically underdeveloped. South Africa has considerable reserves of 20 strategic minerals. Of far greater importance, however, is the fact that South Africa has the ability to be the free world’s largest supplier of no less than 11 of these strategic minerals. So not only does South Africa possess essential raw materials but she can also be relied upon to supply those raw materials. The importance of South Africa’s reliability as a supplier of energy is clearly underlined in a prediction made by Dr. D. P. de Villiers of Sasol as long ago as 1954, when he said that within 20 years the world would be facing an energy crisis and that the available oil would be situated in politically unstable regions on which the West would not be able to rely. Therefore the role South Africa will play in the field of energy will be determined by its ability to utilize its energy resources correctly. Our economic prosperity will not be determined by the availability of energy resources but in fact by the correct utilization of those resources.

The correct utilization of our energy resources is a tremendous challenge facing South Africa. Dr. Anton Rupert said recently that the correct utilization of energy was one of the best criteria for physical prosperity. That explains why South Africa with only 6% of Africa’s total population uses almost half the continent’s electricity and why this consumption will probably double every decade. When one considers the history of civilizations through the centuries one can rightly contend that the correct utilization of available energy resources has played a decisive role in the course of history. History has proved that the correct utilization of energy means economic strength.

South Africa’s proven coal and uranium reserves and the availability of the expertise and labour force to utilize these reserves therefore places her in a very favourable position. In contrast with most industrial countries of the free world that are dependent on imported oil for approximately 50% of their energy consumption. South Africa is only dependent on foreign oil for approximately 20% of its requirements. South Africa has reached the position where she exports more energy in the form of coal and uranium than she imports in the form of oil and electricity.

This year South Africa is expected to replace Poland as the major supplier of coal to the European Economic Community. In the field of uranium South Africa has approximately 18% of the Free World’s reserves and it meets approximately 16% of the world’s uranium requirements. Estimates indicate that by 1985 South Africa’s uranium exports will exceed R800 million. The fact that South Africa has developed a unique uranium enrichment process is in itself an achievement which puts the Republic on a par with a select few countries in the world.

When, therefore, one considers all these facts it is clear that South Africa is extremely well-off as far as its energy resources are concerned. However, the co-ordinating characteristic of the Government’s energy policy is its endeavour to achieve maximum energy independence. From this flows the endeavour to decrease oil imports and to replace them. In 1973 it was predicted that oil’s contribution to the country’s total energy requirements would shrink to 23% by the end of the century. However, now in 1982, a mere nine years later, it can be said that South Africa is self-sufficient in respect of 80% of its requirements. This shows the rate at which South Africa is becoming self-sufficient.

Because it is true that the availability and utilization of energy is such an important element in national prosperity and because it is also true that the history of South Africa will certainly also be written in terms of the use of its energy, there is a tremendous challenge facing us in this field. That is why we hope and trust that the Government of South Africa and the private sector will join hands and will continue with courage and confidence to make breakthroughs in this field that will ensure freedom, peace and prosperity for South Africa and its people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the start I just want to react to a few statements made by the hon. the Minister. He made an announcement about applications for the export of coal, but it seems to me as if the issuing of these permits is going to require the wisdom of Solomon and the integrity of John the Baptist of him and his department, but that they are in any event going to demand his head on a platter after he has granted those concessions and permits.

I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the levy on the delivery of petrol over weekends or outside normal hours has been applied in Natal for a long time. All he is now doing is making an ad hoc situation a de jure situation. We in Natal who want to further the spirit of free enterprise realized long ago that the public is prepared to pay money to be able to cut red tape. If they can fork out a little money, they can get petrol. I do not think that there is a town in Natal where one cannot get hold of petrol on a Saturday evening or Sunday if one asks around quietly, but it costs a little to get those pumps open. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, may I just say in passing that I have never done it. However, the people who will be especially grateful for this, are the Black people who drive long distances over weekends to get to their homeland areas. I think that they will appreciate this very much, although it will be inflationary in that sense. They will undoubtedly be able to recover those additional costs from their passengers.

However, I am disappointed at the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the proposals of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I believe that the gap between what we refer to in English as the “haves and the have nots” is in fact something about which we should be concerned. We cannot simply leave the debate on this gap to the Marxists in this country. There is also a gap with regard to energy in South Africa. In our rural areas people burn cattle droppings to keep the pot boiling, and to me this is a very serious situation. One often travels through a poor rural area where all the trees have been felled. The cattle are skinny and people use the cattle droppings to prepare their food. Then one can just pass a fence or a border, to encounter a completely different situation.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member has not yet been informed. He does not realize that one of the reasons why people move from the Ciskei to the Peninsula is in fact because there are no energy resources available in Ciskei. There they do not have the electricity and all the other facilities we have here in the Cape, and that is an important factor. I do not believe that we can shift onto the private sector the whole question of the use of our timber resources and the fact that we will have to find an alternative fuel for domestic usage. The basic research is uneconomical, but perhaps by travelling abroad one can ascertain where this type of research is being done, and that expertise can then be brought here to be made available to the private sector. I believe that this is a very important aspect of our energy problem in South Africa at the moment, and it requires that we devote attention to the plight of our Third World economy. We can accept that these people from the rural areas will move to the cities, but then we supply our electricity to the cities and it is not really the problem.

That is why we are starting with decentralization, because then these things come of themselves. After all, to go and provide electricity there now is surely not going to work. One must first have the people there.

Mr. Chairman, I quite agree. However, I think that this whole question should be analysed. I feel that it is one of the responsibilities of the hon. the Minister’s department to do this. With regard to the generation of power, we now have turbines which will generate power at very low pressure. What sort of research is for example done by Escom? Like the Small Business Development Corporation, they too should establish a section to investigate alternative forms of energy and the use of low pressure turbines to generate power. This is the type of suggestion I think should be investigated, but unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with that further.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about power shedding and I suppose I will also be talking about power-sharing in the sense that we need to share power with the poorer members of our society. The question of power shedding is a relevant one in Natal and I am pleased to see that it is referred to in both the report of the hon. the Minister’s Department as well as in the report of Escom itself. I hope that we are not going to have power shedding in Natal again. If we are going to have it once more this winter, I believe that the hon. the Minister’s Department should look at a few possible suggestions. First of all, I think it would be helpful if one could get some notice of power shedding. I know that Escom does a careful analysis of electricity demands and the times at which these demands increase. We know that basically happens in the morning when everybody switches on and in the evening when we all get home from work. Obviously demands as far as the mines are concerned when shifts change and so on, also affect the demand for power. However, Escom has a fairly shrewd idea of what is going to happen to demand. I believe that people should be advised in advance. We had incidents in Natal where machines were melting certain chemicals to do extrusion processes. However, the power was cut and the machine stopped. This caused the chemical to solidify and at great expense the whole industrial process in the factory comes to a halt and then has to be cleaned up. Furthermore, from a point of view of security, if street-lighting and domestic lighting is interrupted, people should know, because they have to stay at home to stop burglars coming in rather than leave home without knowing whether the supply will be interrupted or not. I would also like to know what Escom is planning for Natal. There is a reference to the fact that there is a second pumped storage scheme being planned but it is not clear to me whether this is the one in the Kogelberg and the Betty’s Bay area. However, I understand there is one planned for Natal on the Tugela River and I see that the Geological Survey Section of the hon. the Minister’s Department has been doing studies on the Mvumase Dam area on the Tugela River. We have also heard that a nuclear power station may be planned.

The Escom Report states that in the year 2001 Escom will be supplying 40% of South Africa’s energy requirements. If one looks at the estimated increase in the estimated demand expressed in megawatts at that time it is quite staggering to think what it will be and it is clear that nuclear power is going to be an important part of that energy component. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether something is going to be done to generate more electricity in Natal to assist us with the power shedding problems that we are having. We are also pleased that Colenso has had another stay of life. The Colenso power station has been threatened with closure for nearly 30 years but every few years its life has been extended and we are obviously pleased from Colenso’s point of view. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He spoke about dung-cakes and firewood. This is all very strange to me because, while I thought that the Progs had brought the Black squatters to Cape Town I now hear that those people left the Ciskei because they did not have dung-cakes with which to make fire. It is even more strange that they came to squat at Crossroads where there is also no electricity.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to talk about Escom, particularly about the importance of Escom to our country. I also want to refer in my speech to the rural areas and the role which Escom plays there. Furthermore, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister certain problems that are being experienced in the rural areas at present as far as the supply of power is concerned. Escom has already gained various achievements and it has also made a significant contribution to the South African economy. It is estimated that electrical energy constitutes 23% of the total net energy consumption in South Africa at present and that Escom supplies more than 93% of this. Owing to the increase in the cost of other sources of energy, particularly oil, it is anticipated that Escom will have to provide 40% of the country’s total energy requirements by the turn of the century. This is more than three times as much as the 11% supplied in 1961. Apart from its direct contribution to the economy, Escom also promotes the economic prosperity of the country indirectly by selling goods and services to local suppliers. In this way it stimulates the economy during recessions. Escom also provides work for many people and I believe that one could rightly typify Escom as being one of the most important providers of work in South Africa. The growth rate in the demand for electricity remains high. It is anticipated that a growth rate of 7% will be maintained up to and including the end of the century. Escom has maintained an average growth rate of 8,8% per annum over the past 30 years. Present indications are that South Africa will need an installed capacity of approximately 35 000 megawatts by 1990 and approximately 70 000 megawatts by the year 2000. Over the period from 1960 to 1981, Escom’s average purchase price for electricity rose less than the general inflation rate when measured against the wholesale price index. The index of Escom’s selling price of electricity increased from 100 in 1960 to 449 in 1981. According to a survey on the price of electricity which was recently undertaken in 34 countries, it was found that the price of electricity in South Africa was the fifth cheapest and that the development of electricity in all four countries with low tariffs is based predominantly on hydro-electric installations where the price of fuel is of no consequence. The electricity which Escom already sells directly to industry constitutes the largest category and comprises approximately 33% of Escom’s sales. Apart from this, its bulk supply to municipalities is, to a large extent, resold to industrial consumers. Approximately half of Escom’s electricity is consumed by industry. However, bulk sales to municipalities and neighbouring States have increased by 11,3% and at present represent approximately 32% of the total. This was the point to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North was referring, viz. that those people do not have sources of energy at their disposal. Efforts are being made at present to improve the position in this regard.

Sales to the mining industry, Escom’s third largest consumer category, amount to 29%. From this it is clear that Escom has made an important contribution to the country’s economy and that the sale of power outside the agricultural sector is Escom’s highest priority. I also want to express a few thoughts on power and the rural areas.

It is estimated that agriculture consumes approximately 1% of Escom’s power. Despite this low consumption by agriculture, the supply of power to our farms is still increasing. Notwithstanding the shortage of trained staff and periodical shortages of material and equipment, a record number of 4 185 new farm connections were made during 1981, compared with 3 551 in 1980 and 1 818 in 1979. I may perhaps just mention too that at the end of 1981 there were altogether 49 341 rural supply points. Despite this achievement there are still many of our farms that have to be provided with power. The supply of power to the rural areas will not only lead to the conservation of fuel but may also be used as an important instrument in combating the depopulation problem. By supplying power to every farm in our country we will be motivating many farming families to remain on the farms in that they too can make use of the facilities which were originally confined only to the cities.

On 1 January 1982 a new tariff structure known as tariff D for small-scale consumers of power came into operation in the rural areas. This was done to make the conditions of supply more acceptable to rural consumers. In terms of this system, the extension fees which are payable by rural small-scale consumers of power over and above the standard tariffs, have been decreased by 40%, something for which we wish to thank the hon. the Minister. These extension fees, which would previously have been recovered over an indefinite period, are abolished completely after 23 years from the date of the connection concerned in terms of the new dispensation.

Progress in respect of new rural schemes is being delayed at present because of a particular shortage of poles which are needed for the schemes concerned. According to Escom it appears as if the availability of treated wooden poles is going to have a restrictive influence on the extension of rural electricity networks for a long time in the foreseeable future. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to go into the matter because I believe that the shortage should be supplemented as soon as possible so as to ensure that the expansion programme will not be delayed.

I also want to state that I believe that Escom’s complaints offices could be more decentralized. At present these offices are serving very large areas. If more offices were to be opened, prolonged power failures in the rural areas would be restricted to a minimum.

I also want to avail myself of the opportunity today to make an appeal on behalf of the farmers who gave Escom permission to set up power lines across their farms but who at that stage did not see their way clear to make use of Escom’s power supply. Were these farmers to apply now, they would have to pay a much higher tariff, and I should like to make an appeal that those farmers, who give Escom permission to set up power lines across their farms and who at that stage are not interested in making use of that power be given the opportunity at a later stage of being linked up at the tariff which applied at the earlier stage.

On behalf of my constituency I want to appeal for the supply of more power to the Western Transvaal. My constituency consists of five districts, viz. Wolmaransstad, Bloemhof, Christiana, Delareyville and … I have forgotten one.

Leeudoringstad!

Yes, that is also one. Each one of these districts has made contact with Escom through the local agricultural union. Escom has approved some of these schemes while others are at present being delayed as a result of the shortage of engineers so that the planning is not making satisfactory progress. Some of the schemes that have been approved are, in turn, being delayed as a result of the shortage of wooden poles. There is a dire shortage in the Wolmaransstad district in particular and the farmers have asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I should like to conclude by paying tribute to the initiative displayed by the South African Agricultural Union in supporting farmers in respect of obtaining power in the rural areas. Not only did the Union realize that the supply of power to the rural areas would result in the conservation of fuel but also it would have strategic value. At present there is very good co-operation between the South African Agricultural Union and Escom and on behalf of the farmers I wish to convey my gratitude to Escom for what has already been done and for what they are still going to do for the rural areas.

Mr. Chairman, owing to a lack of time, one does not have the opportunity of talking about all the various matters. However, if there is one major problem, it is precisely with regard to Escom in respect of which loan capital is a real problem. The question of Escom loans must be looked at because in my opinion we can expect immense problems in this respect in future. I say this particularly in view of the 18% interest Escom has to pay on loans. One need only look at a few figures to realize that large loans are being negotiated by Escom. Even without taking the repayment of the loans into account, the interest alone amounts to approximately R600 000 to R700 000. This is causing problems. Future new systems are going to cost much more than those in use at present. That is why I ask that very serious attention be given to this matter timeously.

Another matter about which I am very concerned is the compulsory surcharge of R5 per transaction which motorists will now have to pay for fuel supplied outside of the existing prescribed hours. I feel that motorists will only want fuel in emergency situations. Something which disturbs me very much is that when one drives through a town outside of the existing hours for the sale of fuel, garages are all closed, all their lights are off and one cannot even obtain water there. These people provide a service until 5 o’clock in the afternoons and then they lock everything up. One may arrive at a garage after hours and find that the owner is not prepared to provide a service after hours for those on whom he depends for his existence. I think this is a disgrace. There is usually someone who looks after garage premises. Why cannot such a person keep some of the petrol pumps open? Air and water should also be available at garages at all times. We sometimes think that garage owners have a hard time but in my constituency there are 18 filling stations within a radius of two kilometres. If these people are not doing well why are there filling stations around every corner?

Your people are too lively.

Yes, my people are lively, particularly in party politics.

They drive around a lot.

Yes, and knowing the hon. the Minister, we are always there a day ahead of him.

I now want to discuss an extremely important matter and to associate myself with what the hon. member for Brakpan had to say. I am referring to the working conditions of the mineworker.

When one reads the annual report of the Department, one reaches the conclusion that the damage caused by accidents in the mining industry is more important to the mine management than the accident rate itself and the loss of life which accompanies it. I want to quote the following from page 15 of the report—

Throughout the emphasis is on loss. I quote further—

From the basic philosophy which emerges here, as well as the use of the words “damage” and “injury” it is clear that mine production is regarded as being much more important. Reference to “loss control” would definitely sound better if it were referred to as “loss of life control”. References to damage and injuries create the impression that the mineworker is not rated very highly.

Oh, nonsense!

You have never been in a mine, Sir, so do not talk nonsense.

I have often been in one.

Yes, that hon. member has been in one before.

Each year 800 people die in mines and this matter should therefore be looked at. One need only take Civil Aviation as an example. How many improvements have not been brought about in respect of civil aviation? I believe that by using seismographs in mines and not sending people in within two or three hours after an accident has taken place in a certain section of the mine, other accidents can be prevented. However, problems arise as a result of production demands and people have to go into these sections of the mines. All I am asking is that this aspect should be looked at and now I am being told that I know nothing about it. I know a great deal about it. The admission in the report that the higher workloads at coal mines may possibly be a contributory factor to the increased mortality rate is nothing less than an indictment of the control and management at coal mines. I did not draw up the annual report. The report states that the increased workloads at coal mines—increased production—are a possible cause of the high mortality rate. I quote further from the report—

There we have it. They themselves acknowledge that better control and less attention to production, with workloads which will be lessened as a result of greater control, will definitely decrease the death rate. When one considers that in 1981, 853 people died in mining accidents and 18 538 accidents were reported, one realizes what an immense problem this really is. We should try to avoid this great loss of life at all costs.

One realizes that the mineworker performs an extremely dangerous task. If a mineworker does not lose his life in an accident, there is a great possibility that he may suffer permanently from some or other occupational disease or may even die as a result of one before he is 60 years old.

Oh no, really!

Yes, I am aware that that hon. member works for Uncle Harry. He must not place himself on the side of the mining magnates. I am talking about the worker. As far as the mineworker is concerned, there are various kinds of occupational diseases. For example, heat may cause people to develop all kinds of allergies. This is not regarded as an occupational disease. I once came across a very strange thing in Brazil. Many people were dying at an open mine there. No one could discover why this was happening. A certain doctor eventually discovered that certain dust particles in that mine were causing a particular kidney ailment in the workers, thereby causing their death. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte raised several matters. If one has regard to everything he has said, it seems as if he tried to level criticism in all possible fields. He could have done so equally well as a member of the National Party. We regret that the hon. member now sits on the other side of the House and that he holds us responsible for the possible causes of certain matters. The possibility exists that many things could happen. We know that many of the questions raised by the hon. member are questions requiring expertise which are being investigated and which are receiving a lot of attention by this side of the House. One can never say that the National Party has not at all times championed the cause of the worker. I know, and the hon. member for Langlaagte knows, that these problems with accidents have existed for a long time and that the National Party has always cared a lot about the mineworker. I am now talking especially about the mine-worker on the Witwatersrand, because the National Party has always realized that the mineworker is the cog around which our entire economy revolves.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also referred to the service charge of R5 which will in future be payable in respect of petrol purchases outside the prescribed hours. I think this is a very good system which was announced by the hon. the Minister. We have heard about the malpractices the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North on the other side told us about. It is high time these malpractices were terminated.

I just wish to tell the hon. member that a great many activities fall within the ambit of this Department and that if there were no Department of Energy Affairs, all commerce, industry, agriculture, transport services and the whole national economy would come to a standstill. No meeting could be held nor will there be any elections. No trains could run. Virtually nothing could take place if this department did not exist. There is hardly a field of activity in this country in which the activities of this hon. Minister do not exert an influence. I have even found out that the hon. the Minister can increase the production of eggs.

If one wants to effect petrol savings, one need only place an egg between one’s foot and the accelerator. As long as one does not fracture the egg, one will be driving within the speed limit. This may be a way of increasing the production of eggs. Buy your eggs and place them on the accelerator of your car, and you will find that if you have crushed the egg, you have exceeded the speed-limit.

Then you are riding on eggs …

If you are riding on eggs, it is a good thing, because then you drive slowly. Looking at the whole question of speed limits, I am aware that it has caused major dissatisfaction. Traffic authorities are very often under suspicion as a result of them. Criticism must not be levelled at the hon. the Minister or at the measures he institutes. These are matters which should be solved on the local authority level.

The negative attitude of the public to conservation measures must not, therefore, be ascribed to this Department. There must be a positive attitude on the part of the public in respect of the traffic authorities. It must be realized that in the country’s interests speed limits are indispensable.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that with the large petrol tanks cars have these days, long distances can be covered. In addition, there is also a tendency to use ever smaller vehicles. From a very interesting table I have before me, it seems that a car with an engine capacity of 1,6 litre and smaller represented 43% of motor car sales in 1978. In 1981 this percentage increased to 52%. What is also interesting, is that the medium-sized car with an engine of 1,6 to 2 litres was slightly less popular over the same period. In 1978 33% of all cars sold fell in this class, while in 1981 the percentage was only 29%. As regards large motor cars, the percentage sales in the corresponding period dropped from 24% to 19%. There is, therefore, a definite tendency to buy smaller cars these days. Fuel prices have also had a restrictive effect on unnecessary journeys.

I should like to refer to another problem. The question is repeatedly being asked why more fuel cannot be made available for large sports events. Restrictive measures with regard to the procurement of fuel for motor car, motor boat and aircraft races have now been in force for seven years. After an initial total ban after the oil crisis of 1973, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, as a result of representations received from the various sports organizations, granted permission during 1974 for the holding of a restricted number of annual events.

The amount of fuel used annually during these sporting events is relatively small, but unfortunately their presentation creates a negative attitude on the part of the public because they cannot get hold of permits to buy petrol for recreational purposes over weekends. This is an aspect which hampers the public’s co-operation. For years now pressure has been exerted on the Government by the organizers of these sporting events for the relaxation of the restrictions, and even for their complete lifting, but up to now the Government has not seen its way clear to acceding to these representations in every respect.

There was some relaxation on the occasion of the recent re-evaluation of the total fuel measures package, as follows: Aircraft, motor car and motor boat programmes were increased by an average of 20%. International competition and the population growth, which have increased participation in these types of sports, are factors which played a role here.

If, therefore, we want to know what the true situation is, we must have regard to these factors. We would like to see consumers always being in possession of all the facts with regard to the reasons for fuel saving. One of the major problems is the attitude of the fuel consumer. He has no idea of the price structure and cannot immediately see the advantages of fuel saving. He is only interested in speed, time and convenience. To him these are the dominating factors. The Department and the motor vehicle industry must therefore co-operate to inform and educate the public so that they can form a complete picture of how the price structure is constituted and how the better usage of fuel can contribute to a real saving for them.

As regards the low speed limits, I just wish to point out that there is a saving of 13,3% at a speed of 80 kilometres per hour as opposed to a speed of 90 kilometres per hour. At 100 kilometres per hour, the speed at which we are driving so enjoyably at the moment, the fuel consumption is 12,1% higher than at 90 kilometres per hour. At 110 kilometres per hour the fuel consumption is 23,1% higher than at 90 kilometres per hour. These are factors which must be kept in mind.

Something which upsets me very much on the freeway between Johannesburg and Pretoria is the lorries travelling at high speeds. They can maintain that speed downhill, but they are unable to do so uphill. They nevertheless try to overtake other lorries and do not keep left, as they do in other parts of the world. Other motorists are then unable to pass, and on the next downhill section the lorries are travelling so fast that the motor cars are unable to pass them. I should like to see a greater understanding on the part of lorry drivers, especially non-White lorry drivers, so that they will drive more responsibly on our roads.

When one looks at the composition of the petrol price, I feel that greater emphasis must be placed on the additional sales tax which is levied. I am now talking about the petrol price at the coast, the railage costs of petrol, the retail and wholesale price of petrol, the landed costs of imported fuel, the excise duty, the national roads fund, the stockpiling of petrol, its transportation, etc. Only when we also take into account the Equalization Fund levy to cover increased costs can we give the public a clearer idea of how the price is constituted.

What is interesting in this respect, is that many of the factors giving rise to the high fuel consumption can be attributed to the motorist himself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville on his useful contribution here this afternoon. I am sure that many of the thoughts he raised will find favour on this side of the House.

I should like to respond to a few points the hon. the Minister made in his address this afternoon. He talked about the question of the storage of atomic fuel waste. He gave us a useful indication of his intentions in this regard, but the big question, which most members of the public want to have answered, was not answered, namely where will the waste be stored. I am referring to the medium activity waste and also eventually the high-activity waste. Somebody in this Parliament is going to have a problem in his constituency … [Interjections.] I certainly hope it is not my constituency. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the public to be frank about this.

We can put it in the Falklands.

Another thing the hon. the Minister said to which I would like to react, is his criticism of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for querying the amount of money spent on nuclear energy research and related activities. The hon. Minister said that if we were in Government we would want to spend the same amount of money and that we would have an equal need to expend this level of investment. I do not think that is an entirely fair comment. I think that if we were part of the free world and not a pariah state, we might not actually be spending the sort of money we are spending on for example uranium enrichment. If we had free access to world markets we might find that we did not have to spend quite what we are spending.

Or our economy might be so flat that we do not have the money to spend.

I think the hon. the Minister might have to accept that this is one of the costs of being in the laager in South Africa; in fact, one of the costs of apartheid. And there is another thing. The hon. the Minister said that he wants to assure the public “that they are getting the full benefit of the lowering international oil price” or words to that effect. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that whatever benefit he may be obtaining from the lower oil price, he is not getting the full benefit that he would be getting if again we were not having to pay for being in the laager, if we were not having to pay for the fact that South Africa must operate in a shadowy cloak and dagger world when it comes to obtaining our oil supplies. It is unfortunate that we cannot fully discuss the sources of procurement of our oil supplies as there are certain things that trouble the public about these matters. Reports such as that which appeared in the Sunday Times very recently do not help to allay public concern in this regard. I am referring to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times entitled “The Secret of my Fortune” by Chiavelli, and the opening paragraph states—

I do not know the extent to which Dr. Chiavelli has profited from oil supplied to South Africa—perhaps we will never know—but are we one of the politically sensitive countries that is referred to here? I believe that the public suspects so.

Why do you not ask me that question in private?

Would you answer it in private?

You know the law as it stands. Why do you not ask me that question in private? Why do you make a political issue of it?

Mr. Chairman, it is a political issue. It is an issue which concerns the public and it should be dealt with in public. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may well be able to brief me in private, a nice cosy little briefing, but that is not going to allay public concern in this matter.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

I am sorry that the dinner hour interrupted the trend of what I was saying. I would however like to add that it is greatly to be regretted that the Government’s secretive policies and its own legislation leads to the type of rumour and suspicion which surrounds the individual who is the subject of this report. The Government must blame itself for the fact that articles such as this one appear.

The point I wish to make, is that the hon. the Minister must tell the public what element of the fuel price has to be apportioned to a premium payable for cloak and dagger type procurement practices which serve only to enrich certain unknown middle men. Let the public know what part of the price of each litre of fuel they must pay because South Africa is condemned by the world community and therefore has to operate in this shadowy world.

The item which I really want to discuss in the remaining time is the Palmiet River pump storage scheme. This is a scheme which is going to cost Escom in the region of R200 million out of a total cost of R254 million. On the part of Escom it involves, as I understand it, the building of an approximately 2 kilometre tunnel between two dams which the Department of Water Affairs is going to erect in the Elgin-Grabouw area. It also involves the erection of two 200 megawatt pump turbines at the Kogelberg dam, a steel penstock and, in particular, a shaft and surge tank with a total height of 222 metres, 45 metres of which is going to be above ground. It is going to be located on fairly high ground in the Grabouw area. The 45 metres above ground, as I understand it, is the equivalent of a 15 or 20-storey building sticking above the ground in a rural area, and it will have an 18 metre diameter. I believe the public in this part of the world need clarification on the environmental impact of this scheme and on the way in which Escom is going to undertake the development. I should like to take the opportunity of welcoming the fact that a multi-disciplinary committee has been appointed to consider the whole scheme. A number of environmental and other Government bodies are involved on this committee and I believe they have considered the environmental aspects fairly closely and have agreed that there is no fundamental objection to the scheme. They have, however, recorded a very important proviso, which reads as follows—

The Department of Environmental Affairs— which is responsible for only some 20% of the cost of the scheme, as I have calculated—has issued a detailed White Paper on this scheme. At this stage I am not aware of a public report from Escom, but I think it would be a very good thing if this was made available to the public. In the White Paper the Department of Environmental Affairs indicate that they have provided some R733 000 for the restoration of the environment in that area for the works that they are undertaking, which is just the two dams. For the bulk of the work, Escom’s part, I have not yet established what amount of money has been allocated to the restoration of the environment and to limiting the impact the actual works will have on that environment. I should like the hon. the Minister to inform the public, especially the public in this part of the world. They are very concerned about the environment aspects, because the Palmiet River valley is seen as one of the finest examples of the coastal fynbos in the Western Cape. There is a great concern that whatever happens there, must not have a negative effect on the environment. I should like to put the following questions to the hon. the Minister: Firstly, what recommendations has the Environmental Inter-Disciplinary Committee made in respect of the work which is going to be undertaken by Escom? Secondly, what plans and provisions for restoration, particularly regarding the surge tank, are to be undertaken by Escom in this regard? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I would assume that various speakers have already paid tribute to the mineworkers tonight and referred to the particularly important task which they perform. Various other subjects were also broached, by the hon. member for Constantia for instance and the hon. the Minister will furnish him with the necessary replies.

Tonight I want to make a few remarks about the importance of the mining industry. First of all I want to deal with the gold-mining industry and after that I should also like to say something about coal and the importance of that commodity. When I say that the gold-mining industry is an important industry I am not implying that it is the most important industry or that there are no other important industries. A fact that cannot be denied, however, is that this is at least not a less important industry than the other most important industries. Because this is so it is fitting that we convey our thanks, first of all, to the Government for what it has done to ensure that we have a gold-mining industry in which stability prevails and for the necessary legislation which it enacts for the protection of the industry. The Government also enacts the necessary legislation for the protection of the worker. In this way one could mention various aspects for which we are indebted to the Government as far as the goldmining industry is concerned. However, we need to thank the mine owners as well. I have no doubt that we are greatly indebted to the major financial institutions who are prepared to apply their entrepreneurial talent and large amounts of capital in the interests of this particular industry and therefore I should like to pay tribute to those people as well.

It is equally true, however, that we should pay tribute to the administrative and technical staff in the gold-mining industry as well as to the small group of mineworkers. These are people who spend their lives underground. There are many mines in my part of the world and if I were to ask myself whether I should like to earn my living the way the mineworkers do, I would have to answer quite honestly that I would not be prepared to do so. These people are prepared to do hard physical labour under difficult circumstances. They are prepared to do everything for a metal that is mined and which eventually will serve the interests of the whole country—and certainly their own as well.

I think we sometimes fail to pay adequate tribute to these people who, under those circumstances, toil for the whole day in the interests of the task they perform. Mineworkers constitute 20% of the total labour force in mining, but this little group is an extremely important group. Because it is an extremely important group, they should receive the same treatment as everybody else.

This brings me to the complaint which we who represent mining constituencies have often raised in the House, viz. the treatment often meted out to mineworkers by the medical bureau. I do not want to generalize tonight—that would be wrong and I am fully aware of the problems in the medical bureau—but there is no doubt that some distrust has developed over the years between the mineworker on the one hand and the mine owner or medical bureau on the other. It is indeed true that some men, for very specific reasons which I will not go into now, would like to be certified in the first degree. Although I understand that and although I understand that the medical bureau has a heavy workload, I have no doubt at all that the treatment meted out to some of our mineworkers at medical benefit examinations or follow up examinations is such that they would be justified in feeling aggrieved. Because these people are of course sensitive, it befits the medical bureau to treat these people with the required respect, particularly in view of the circumstances under which they visit the medical bureau. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister tonight to use his influence in respect of the treatment of mineworkers by the medical bureau.

I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, viz. the question of pensions. I know that it may not be relevant to this debate—hon. members could say that it was a matter for another department and falls under another hon. Minister—but I do believe that it is incumbent upon the State, the community and the mine owners to pay attention to the position of the retired mineworker, the pensioner. The conditions under which they worked two, three our four decades ago and the salaries and pensions which they received at that stage, justify the payment, at this stage, of a pension more worthy of a human being than that which they are entitled to at present. One might say that these people could have joined a pension scheme years ago and that they preferred not to do so, but I feel, nevertheless, that we as a community and all institutions concerned, should give these people a hearing and if possible, help them to procure better subsistence.

I now want to make a few observations about coal. I studied the annual report of the Department and also read several articles on the importance of coal. Once again I have been struck by the extreme importance of this black substance which is actually not as black as it appears but which could be a brilliant white if one were to judge it by its importance. As a matter of fact one need only think of white paint which is manufactured from the by-products of coal.

Don’t be racist.

One is absolutely astonished when one sees what a variety of by-products can be manufactured from coal. One could probably mention up to fifty products which are eventually manufactured as by-products of coal. I just want to mention a few in passing. We are aware of the importance of coal for the manufacture of oil and for the generation of electricity. In this regard I want to mention that Escom is expecting an annual growth of 7 to 8% in the demand for electricity, that is to say that the electricity supply will more or less have to double every decade. This underscores the importance of coal. Escom supplies 93% of all South Africa’s electricity, of which 88% comes from coal power-stations. Coal is therefore an extremely important product for our purposes.

During 1981 there was a decline of 8% in the total mineral production. During the same period there was a decline of 12,6% in the value of mineral export but over against that coal showed the best performance of all minerals. The export sales value of coal increased by no less than 42% whereas the tonnage as such showed only a slight increase. The average price, however, increased by no less than 33%. Only gold is at present a more important earner of foreign exchange. The value of the domestic sales of coal is also extremely important. The value of domestic sales last year for the first time amounted to more than 1 milliard. The tonnage sold locally in 1981 was 97,9 million tons, compared with 81,7 million tons in 1980. If one considers the importance of coal, and coal exports, the increase in the growth rate of domestic consumption of coal … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Virginia. He placed me in the position, however, where I feel like a person who is courting an old maid whom everybody has courted already or in whom they are no longer interested because we have all spoken about coal tonight.

To realize the importance of the coal industry we have to assess the industry in the global context. The proven coal reserves of America at present amounts to 1,7 billion tons and the exploitable portion amounts to 238 milliard tons. If one looks at these figures, one realizes what kind of figures are involved. Oil has played such a dominant role in the American economy that the development of coal technology has in fact lagged behind, and it is quite understandable that geologists at present estimate the actual in situ reserves of America to be approximately 4 billion tons. In the ’seventies America began to realize the problems involved in importing oil. There was the danger of sources that could be cut off—as did happen during the Yom Kippur war—and the problem of protecting distant interests, as England experienced in the case of the Falklands. One could expect, therefore, that America will be utilizing this resource to a larger extent in future, and that enormous expansion is going to take place.

In the year 2000 approximately 89% of all natural oil resources in the world will be depleted but at that stage only 3% of the world’s coal reserves will have been depleted. When one looks at all these things, one can arrive at only one conclusion, viz. that in the years which lie ahead the coal trade and industry is going to mushroom all over the world. It is in the light of this that we have to plan our own industry in such a way that we would be able to encompass all these aspects. When one talks about planning, one should know three things: One should know where one is, where one is going and the better one defines one’s objectives, the more successful one will be in working out one’s modus operandi and the greater one’s chances of success.

This is just like the NRP!

I want to assure hon. members that if we should define our objective in the way the NRP does it, I should rather be stuck with this old maid of mine.

If one is to define the objective one should be intent on the maximum exploitation of the in situ resource. One should also be intent on the maximum conversion of coal into other sources of energy. Thirdly one should try to determine in which way one could utilize this resource in the best manner to the best strategic and economic advantage for South Africa. As far as the maximum exploitation of the resource is concerned, our proven reserves in 1975 were 80 milliard tons and the exploitable reserves 25 milliard tons. After the Petrick report of 1980 these reserves increased to 110 milliard tons and 51 milliard tons respectively. This represents an increase of 30% to 46% in the exploitation percentage of our resource. This increase in the exploitation resource can be ascribed in the first place to the improvement of our mining methods. In the old days the pillar and chamber method was used and yielded an exploitation percentage of 25%. Nowadays, however, we are to an increasing extent using the open cast method or the strip stopping method, which can yield an exploitation percentage of up to 90%.

A new shaft method, the so-called collapsed roof method, yields a recovery percentage of 90% as against the old method which yielded a recovery percentage of only 25%. Now is the time to develop this kind of method but legal-technical problems are being encountered. Even up to two years after this mining technique has been used the problem occurs that the roof collapses and that surface disturbances occur. This is the right time to go into this matter and to solve this problem without negating the rights of the landowners. We have to start doing feasibility studies on the open-cast method in order to determine whether we could not mine deeper than the present limit of 30 metres. We have to try to reach 50 metres.

We also have to see in which way we could convert our coal resource into various sources of energy. The first source is electricity and in this respect I want to mention that 20 years ago we generated one kilowatt/hour of electricity from one kilogram of coal whereas at present we obtain it from only half a kilogram of coal. The technology in this country has developed to such an extent that we are even able to utilize coal with an ash content of as high as 40% and a kilojoule content of as low as 60 kilojoules per gram. Hon. members should see this material to realize what I am talking about. I am talking of material which, in fact, is as hard as a rock, but it is to our advantage to utilize this low grade material. We have a problem, however, in that this material is so hard that it cannot merely be pulled out with a ripper but has to be blasted out. Escom plans to increase its power supply in the next 10 years from 20 000 megawatts to 40 000 megawatts and this presents one with the undeniable fact that the number of people doing this blasting will have to be increased considerably. Who is going to do this blasting? If we carry on with the Arrie Paulus method, and we know that the White population of this country is not able to grow fast enough, who is going to do this blasting? We have the problem that we must present the plans for getting this work done. That is the whole point. We must present plans and all we receive from the other people is mindless criticism.

The second objective is to convert this energy into liquid energy. We know that the present Sasol method has been so refined that reasonably good results are obtained with it even with low grade coal. In the last two or three years we have succeeded, with the Sasol method, in decreasing the ratio of petrol to diesel which was 4:1 previously to a ratio of 1:1. New methods are at present being developed, however, in terms of which liquefaction from coal into liquid fuel takes place directly. For this a very high grade of coal is required, however. The latest technological development is that super-refined carbon is fed directly into the carburettors of motor cars. This was done in America last year. In this case one has to start with a high grade product so that it can easily be refined to pure carbon.

To succeed in this case, one has to do three things. One has to complete as soon as possible the physical survey of one’s coal resources and categorize them so as to plan the maximum utilization of this resource. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we in the NRP support the representation by the hon. member for Heilbron on behalf of the coal industry although it was a pity that his time for pleading their cause was so limited. Everyone in this House appreciates the role and excellent performance of the coal industry. As several hon. members of the various parties have said before, coal is obviously the Black diamond of South Africa. We look forward to a stage in the future when it will be possible to solve many of these problems.

I want first of all to react to what the hon. the Minister said previously in reply to questions which we put to him. It seems to me as if the hon. the Minister has become so conditioned by the opposition parties, and the NRP in particular, that he sees the NP merely as a part of the problem. What I actually wanted to tell the hon. the Minister earlier today, was that we do not regard the NP as part of the problem but as part of the solution. I believe that there should be a change in the viewpoint of the hon. the Minister in regard to the way in which we discuss matters here. Whether the PFP is going to participate in the solution of South Africa’s problems I do not know but they are certainly part of the problem.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that my plea on behalf of the gold-mining industry in regard to the formulae to be applied in respect of marginal mines was simply an attempt to ensure that we take a thorough look, not only at the profit motive but also at the fact that mining plays a very important socio-economic role in our country as a result of the job opportunities which the mining industry provides for our people. This is the far-reaching problem which we in South Africa will be faced with in the near future, viz. to create enough job opportunities for all our population groups.

†I should like to refer to the R5 levy or surcharge which the hon. the Minister announced this afternoon. Although we appreciate in sentiment what the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve, namely the reduction of bureaucratic and administrative procedures by the imposition of a R5 surcharge on any purchases made after normal shopping hours in the service station industry, we do not believe that this particular provision is going to work in practice. Firstly, what the hon. the Minister is doing, is that he is “punishing” those people who actually require a service after hours. In the first case there are those citizens of South Africa who genuinely find themselves in emergency situations where they have to undertake fairly lengthy journeys, but who have not made sufficient provision for it and now have to pay R5 surcharge to obtain fuel after hours to attend to that particular emergency, whatever it may be. Whether it is a visit to a distant city because of a death in the family, or any other private matter, it does not matter.

One also has to think of the doctors and taxi owners in South Africa who, by the very nature of their occupation, are forced to obtain fuel after hours. Although we appreciate the sentiment, in practice we feel this will be a punitive measure which will not contribute to the ultimate goal, which is fuel saving. I do not think very many people in private life who do not have a specific need are actually going to tank up after hours. Secondly, we believe that even the R5 surcharge will not make an after-hour service economical for the service stations and the end result will be that unless the hon. the Minister and his department or the Association of Motor Traders actually designate service stations to be operative after hours, they will find that the R5 surcharge will be uneconomical. Although we are prepared to allow this to be operative for a trial period, our prediction is that the R5 levy or surcharge will not fulfil the function for which it was intended. [Interjections.] What is going to happen now is that a large number of people, in order to avoid the R5 surcharge, are going to tank up on Friday or Saturday in case they will require the need for additional fuel during the weekend. We visualize the possibility that for a taxi owner, particularly the private taxi owner, the R5 surcharge could make the difference between being profitably operative on the weekend and not profitably operative. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that what he should, in fact, consider, is consultation not so much with the garage owners or the bureaucracy, but with the occupations such as the medical profession, taxi owners and heavy transporters in order to find out what their solution would be for weekend sales. We are in total agreement that the private citizen, for normal purposes, should in fact not necessarily have access to fuel during that time for joyrides, but it should be available for those who need it. My plea to the hon. the Minister is that he should also consult with the taxi owners’ associations and the medical fraternity.

What is your suggested solution?

Well, we shall find out what the solution is by consultation. We in this party are democrats. We do not believe in forcing solutions on those people who require the solutions.

[Inaudible.]

Well, the PFP of course have vested interests which one can discuss at length at a later date. [Interjections.]

Then I should like to refer to Sasol. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that the time is now ripe for Sasol to become a one hundred per cent public floated company. I think the hon. the Minister and his colleagues have seen the need for instance for the Government to intervene in the initial capital investment for the establishment of an organization such as ADE—Atlantis Diesel Engines—and that once the initial capital has been invested in the strategic industry, it then becomes almost totally privately or publicly owned. In terms of public I mean by shareholders of the public. I believe that exactly the same principle applies to Sasol. Sasol I, II and III have now been launched by the Government and the time is now ripe, if we are to take full economic advantage of our technology and our development of Sasol, for the Government to now relinquish all shareholding in Sasol I, II and III and to float that company one hundred per cent in the private enterprise field. [Interjections.] Private enterprise is ingenious in cutting costs. Government owned organizations are not as in genious in cost cutting and passing the benefit on to the public. My appeal to the hon. the Minister tonight is to see what means are available for relinquishing control of Sasol I, II and III and allowing this to be floated off to the public in general. Then, in addition to that, any new ventures hinted at by the hon. the Minister today for Sasol IV should in fact be seen entirely in the private enterprise sector. The costs are considerable, but there is such a market potential in this area that I do not believe that Sasol IV actually requires Government participation for the establishment of the original infrastructure as was the …

Why do you not consult with private enterprise?

Well, there is one very fine consultation that has already been undertaken. It was the best consultation ever. An opinion from the public was expressed when the initial shares, the limited shares, were floated to the public for Sasol II and III. The hon. the Minister knows as well as we do that the over-subscription of the shareholding was 31 times. With that kind of support from the public, and that local option being expressed by the public, it is very evident that Sasol IV would not require Government assistance. [Interjections.] However, I think the hon. the Minister must widen his horizon when he talks about consulting private enterprise. One can go to the entrepreneur in the vested organizations who have diverse interests and who are therefore only prepared to allocate a certain amount of their capital to innovative development or one can go to the man in the street who is prepared to invest in Sasol IV as he is prepared to invest in bonus bonds as well.

Subject to local option?

Subject to local option, of course. That is the democratic way. I am very pleased to see the interest the PFP is taking in local option.

[Inaudible.]

Well, Sir, it does not take very much to amuse small minds. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North must pardon me for not replying to the various aspects he raised. I think that the hon. the Minister will deal with him satisfactorily. I wish to come back to the aspect which the hon. member actually wanted to bring up in conclusion, viz. one of the absolute essentials in our economy today, electricity, and more specifically Escom. It has already been mentioned here this afternoon that the present installed capacity of Escom represents approximately 93% of the electricity provided in South Africa. I think it is interesting to note that this represents approximately 60% of the electricity provided in Africa. Now, if we look at future growth, we see that by the year 1990 the present installed capacity has practically to double, and that in the ensuing 10 years, by the year 2000, a further doubling has to take place. In other words, in contrast with the present capacity, almost four times more power will have to be provided. It is estimated that electrical energy at present constitutes almost 23% of the total net energy in South Africa but, with the rise in the cost of other sources of energy, particularly oil, it is expected that this will increase to approximately 40% by the end of the century. This is more than three times as much as the 11% provided in 1961. The anticipated growth of Escom will entail an enormous expansion programme over the next 25 years. Apart from the direct contribution it makes to the economy, it also stimulates the economy during lows in the business cycle. Employment opportunities will be provided for thousands of people and immense demands will be made of the country’s resources and manpower. During this period approximately 20 base-load stations the size of a present Dhuva or Matla will be built, as well as approximately five peak-load stations. In order to appreciate the scope and amount of capital required it may be mentioned that power-stations such as Dhuva or Matla with a design of six 600 megawatt sets will cost at least R2 000 million at 1982 prices. A power-station such as Ngagane in my district has a generating capacity of 440 megawatts; in other words, less than one of the sets at one of these large new power-stations. The total capital expenditure up to the year 1990 will be about R45 000 million of which almost R30 000 million will be for additional power-station capacity. The basis for the financing of Escom’s capital requirements is sound. The target of financing 50% of these capital requirements from internal sources is within reach.

The aim of Escom in terms of the Electricity Act is to provide sufficient electricity at cost price everywhere where it can be used for the economic progress of the Republic of South Africa. The performance of Escom therefore is, has been and will always be of the utmost importance, measured in terms of its contribution to the economy, according to the price and the amount of electricity it provides for consumption. Escom therefore aims at lowering the cost of electricity in real terms on a continuous basis. With this in mind, Escom is always productivity conscious and it is proud of the improvements in productivity that have been achieved over the years. I wish to mention some of these improvements. Over the past 20 years Escom has almost doubled the number of kilowatt hours per official. The quantity of coal which is burnt per kilowatt hour has dropped by approximately a quarter, despite the fact that the heat content of coal has decreased. The water consumption per kilowatt hour has dropped by approximately half, and the amount of capital per kilowatt hour has decreased by an average of 3% per annum. The average increase in Escom’s productivity as a whole over the past 20 years has been approximately 1,25% per annum and the present average selling price of electricity in real terms is lower than 20 years ago. I really think this is a wonderful achievement.

In the past the biggest improvement in productivity has been effected by the use of bigger and more efficient equipment. Changed circumstances, for example, a shortage of resources, the interruption of the supply from Cabora Bassa, environmental control measures and security considerations made it necessary to investigate critically the use of all resources so that potential improvements in productivity could be effected. Escom therefore launched a productivity improvement programme as a means of promoting a more balanced approach to planning and in order to bring about the intensification of productivity. Escom’s management therefore drew up the following policy statement concerning the improvement of productivity, and I quote—

Escom therefore regards as being of the utmost importance the fact that the balance between productivity and quality be retained in the promotion of its productivity.

The future expansion programmes of Escom, as has already been mentioned, will make great demands of the country’s manpower resources, particularly as far as skilled manpower is concerned. As has already been mentioned today, it is anticipated that a growth rate of approximately 8,5% per annum will have to be maintained over a number of years if Escom wishes to carry out its expansion plan and to eliminate its backlog. To meet the shortfall, it is Escom’s declared policy to make equal opportunities available to everyone within the framework of Government policy and the interests of existing groups of employees. Consequently, consultations are taking place on a continuous basis with employers and employee organizations. Coloured people have already been employed in various posts. For example, Escom has Black and Coloured artisans in its employ and has already started training Asian apprentices. Administrative careers are also being created for coloured people and the remuneration of the employees in particular posts is equal to that of Whites. The principle of equal pay for equal work continues to receive attention. Furthermore, training activities have been intensified. The intake of apprenctices and learner technicians has been increased as has been the number of bursaries for engineering students.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House wish to express our gratitude to Mr. Jan H. Smith and to every member of the Escom team of almost 50 000 employees. We trust that as a team Escom will accept the challenge of the future and that it will build on the successes of the past.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has talked at length about Escom and he has made some interesting points. He will forgive me if I do not follow him in the limited time that I have available.

Wind power.

Yes, wind power the hon. member for Durban North suggests. I should like to add my felicitations to the three people that the hon. the Minister mentioned at the beginning of his speech earlier today, namely Dr. Ampie Roux, Mr. V. C. Barnes and Dr. F. J. Wiles, and I should like to add the congratulations and thanks of this side of the House and wish all three of them well in their retirement. I do not know whether they have grandchildren, but if they have I hope that they will have the time to enjoy their grandchildren as much as possible.

The hon. member for Durban North suggested that Sasol IV should be set up by private enterprise rather than the Government. I think that I must point out to him that of course there is nothing to prevent any private enterprise organization from investing in a facility of this nature, and in fact, I am quite certain that they will get every encouragement from the Government in this regard. However, the amounts involved are of course enormous and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply more fully to this particular point. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. member’s remarks on the new petrol selling permit, or rather R5 fee. I think that this is something that is worth a try. Certainly the permit system had to be, I believe, dispensed with and I think the hon. the Minister has done the right thing in dispensing with that permit system. The R5 fee is obviously an experiment. Far be it from me to try and forecast that it is going to be a great success or a great failure. I would only say that if one is urgently in need of petrol for travelling to some urgent affair, R5 is not very much. I actually have the feeling that the situation is going to be that petrol sales might well rise. I think a lot of people are going to be prepared to pay a R5 fee in order to have the privilege of being able to buy petrol after hours. That is the area of danger I see in the plan. It could, in fact, increase petrol sales.

The two points I actually want to refer to are in terms of a report that has recently come to my attention. It is not a new report. This report appeared in To the Point of 3 August 1979. It is a long article by the then chairman of the Gem Cutters Association, making certain allegations in terms of tiger eye. I should like to draw this article to the hon. the Minister’s attention.

Three years old?

Yes, three years old. However, I understand that the situation is the same to quite a large extent today. As far as the gem cutters of South Africa are concerned right now, many of the factories that have dealt with tiger eye, that have cut tiger eye and that manufactured articles out of tiger eye have closed down. I think the hon. the Minister’s department will confirm that. I recently inspected a factory here in Cape Town, where there are no less than, I think, 50 machines standing idle, that used to employ 36 people and which today does not employ anybody. I think this is a serious situation. The allegation in this particular article is that one of the industry’s complaints is that tiger eye has been reaching overseas markets in its rough state through Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho. I quote—

Further in the same article, talking about other stones of this nature, the allegation is made that as a result of indiscriminate exploitation—and I quote—

These are allegations which I believe the hon. the Minister or his Department should look into, because if they are, in fact, justified then there is certainly cause for concern.

The other item that I should like to mention is the scare that came up last year in connection with the report that was tabled in the United States of America containing allegations of cartel operations of suppliers to the electrical generating industry throughout the world. I have mentioned this in this House before; I believe when I last mentioned it, the report had only just come out. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a full and proper study has been made of all these allegations in the report and whether Escom is totally satisfied that the cartel operations have not affected them adversely at all. This, of course, is the worrying factor, that the situation could be that the South African generating authorities had to pay more for generating equipment than could be justified.

Finally, I should like to repeat to the hon. the Minister the two points that I mentioned and that he has not replied to. I want to reiterate them. The one related to daylight saving and the other related to a plea for tax concessions for solar heating equipment.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. member for Brakpan is not here at the moment. I shall not comment on what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had to say. I think the hon. the Minister will reply to that. However, I would like to refer to something which the hon. member for Brakpan mentioned here. He referred to the Nieuwenhuizen Report and said, inter alia, that Whites in the mining industry were being discriminated against. It concerned the examination of Whites at the medical bureau in respect of which he alleged that a White person up to and including 30 years of age was examined once every three years while a Black worker in the mining industry was examined every nine months. He is quite correct but Whites are by no means discriminated against because Blacks are not examined for pneumoconiosis but in fact to see whether they do not possibly have TB. This is an infectious disease and, in view of the fact that they live together in large hostels, it could be absolutely catastrophic if these people are not examined very much more often. I mention this simply to prove that Whites are by no means discriminated against in this regard. [Interjections.]

I want to say something more about the pensions of the people in the mining industry. There has been a great deal of reference to the fact that the man in the mining industry originally did not want to subscribe to a pension fund, and perhaps rightly so in that, as a result of the hazardous work done by the mineworker in the past and the dusty conditions under which he had to work, he felt that he would in any case never reach pensionable age. In many cases this was in fact true and they did not reach the age of 60. That is why they were by no means anxious to subscribe to a pension fund. Since then, vast improvements have been effected in the mining industry, many changes have been brought about, and in 1949 a pension fund was also established for the men in the mining industry. Unfortunately, at its inception, the pension was calculated on the basic wage of such a worker, and I may just mention here that this hit the stopper in the mining industry extremely hard because his basic wage was very low. That is why he had eventually to retire on an extremely meagre pension as well. We are aware that for many years in the House our predecessors—I am thinking here of the MPs in particular; I did a little reference work in old Hansards— spoke about these meagre pensions the miners were receiving. I want to convey my gratitude to them today, because I believe they made a great contribution towards the payment of better pensions.

The Government has on more than one occasion in the recent past asked that the parties involved, viz. the employers and the employees, should meet around the negotiating table and do something to effect improvements for the pensioner. That request has been complied with and that is why I can say today that the men in the mining industry are enjoying better pension benefits.

There are two matters that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first deals with the so-called compulsory retirement of a person in the mining industry. I just want to explain briefly that for every eight years a man works underground, he has to retire on pension one year earlier; in other words, if a man has 32 years’ service and is due to retire at the age of 60, it means that he will have to retire at the age of 56. Most of these people are still in reasonably good health at that age because the ones who are really adversely affected by this provision to a large extent are people such as engineers, artisans and officials in the mining industry, people who really go underground very seldom and who are less exposed to occupational diseases. When I returned to my constituency recently I received a fair number of complaints in this regard. People feel that they are at their peak then and that they still have a considerable contribution to make. They are well-trained people who then have to leave the industry. We are losing many good men because of this and they are, in fact, being forced out of the labour market. I was wondering whether something could not perhaps be done about this.

A second matter I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is the abuse of the pension fund. Only after a man has been out of the mining industry for two years, may he claim his pension contributions, that is if he has left before reaching pensionable age. However, in many other instances this is not the case. I am thinking, for example, of our local authorities where, if someone resigns, his contributions are paid out to him immediately. The result is that people move around a great deal and change their jobs simply in order to have their pension contributions repaid to them, and then when such a person reaches pensionable age one day, there is no pension for him. I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister could not possibly give attention to the establishment of a central pension fund into which all pension contributions could be paid so that no one will be able to claim his pension contributions until he reaches pensionable age or unless he is declared to be absolutely medically unfit for any further work or on the death of such person. This would bring about immense relief for the State. If this is not done, the State will have to look after those people in the future.

I want to come back for a moment to the fine improvements which have come about in the pension fund. I just want to mention that it is estimated that the joint pension fund will amount to R1 700 million at the end of 1982. The contribution of the worker is 8,5% as against 10,5% by the employer. The official contributes 11,5% as against his employer’s 10,5%. I should actually clarify this by saying that 4% of that 11,5% is also contributed by the employer. However, if a person resigns to accept another position, the employer then has the right to retain that 4% and such an employee will find at his retirement that he will receive a lower pension than he would originally have received.

The pension is based on the total contribution of both parties. For the worker the basic pension was 13% with a bonus of 16%. That 13% has now been increased to 18% with a bonus of 0,57% for each year of service. This increase came into operation retrospectively from 1 January 1981. The basic pension of an official was increased from 13% to 15% with an additional payment of 0,425% for every year of service. This was made retrospective to 1 January 1980. On inquiry —I telephoned the constituency and spoke to various people—I was told that this has brought about an improvement of as much as 50% in the pension of the mineworker. A further benefit which the miner has received is the death benefit. Whereas it was previously the worker’s prerogrative to determine whether or not he wanted to make provision for a widow’s pension, it is now compulsory that provision be made for a widow’s pension and for every child under the age of 18 years, unless the worker states specifically that he does not wish to make provision for a widow’s pension. This may happen in cases where the husband and wife have been estranged for many years but have never been legally divorced.

I want to conclude by conveying my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and all the NP MPs who assisted in improved pension benefits being introduced—proof that this party is also a party for the workers. My thanks too to employers and employees for their discussions and for what has been brought about by their discussions. I want to mention one final point. I think that it will solve all the problems of the person in the mining industry if a gratuity is paid which is not linked to his pension. There are hon. members who have discussed the question of gratuities. I am thinking of the hon. member for Randfontein. I also feel very strongly about this matter and I believe that if it can be instituted, we will have a very much happier workers corps in the mining industry.

Mr. Chairman, as I only have a few minutes at my disposal at this late stage, I shall have to make haste. In the first instance I want to say that I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Carletonville. Basically I agree with what he had to say with regard to the mineworker and his interests and particularly also in respect of the pensions. I think it is extremely important that as far as the welfare of the mineworker is concerned, there should be adequate pension benefits for these people. Sir, I want to refer to a particular case. [Interjections.] I shall continue while the PFP is conducting its own debate and is extremely concerned about something. [Interjections.]

As far as the mineworker is concerned who in most cases lives in a house owned by the mining authorities—and we experience this daily in the case of mineworkers who are already on pension—he finds it very difficult to make ends meet because of the fact that housing has become very expensive as a result of inflationary conditions. These people are not always able to make ends meet because of their meagre pensions. That is why I am pleased that the hon. member for Carletonville also emphasized this matter. I also wish to express my gratitude for the fact that improvements have been effected. I think this is welcomed by those people.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer briefly to the announcement of the hon. the Minister with regard to the provision of fuel. I think the intention is to facilitate matters for the travelling public. However, I foresee that possibly—I say possibly—problems may arise for the dealer, particularly in the areas where there is not a large turnover. A person has to go to a considerable amount of trouble to obtain a permit and one will not seek to obtain a permit unless it is absolutely necessary. However, since all one will have to do now to obtain petrol after hours, is pay a surcharge of R5, people may perhaps make more use of this system and this may also lead to inconvenience. However, I say this simply in passing.

Do you support the system in respect of doctors and taxi drivers?

I do not wish to go into detail. I only have a few minutes at my disposal. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Brakpan had to say in regard to the Nieuwenhuizen Report. I do not wish to go into it in detail. It is a comprehensive report which affects many facets of the service. I simply wish to say this to the hon. member for Brakpan: I hope that he and his party will refrain from turning this into a political football because it involves the interests of a large group of workers in this country.

I should like to ask a question.

Unfortunately I have to conclude at five past nine. Let me just say this: I know that every political party—I do not wish to be naïve—is looking for votes, and the votes of the workers as well. Now I want to ask just this: Let us consider this report judiciously and at our leisure and then decide in the best interests of the workers. Do not let us make a political issue of this.

In what way was I injudicious?

I did not say that that hon. member was injudicious, but what he said boiled down to the fact—one of that hon. member’s colleagues also referred to the mineworkers—that it appeared as if there was no interest in the mineworkers on the part of this side of the House, and that is nonsense. History proves the contrary.

We shall look after the White worker.

I also want to refer briefly to the recent mining disaster at the Free State Geduld Mine. I am grateful that those 8 500 workers who were underground could move to safety. There were only four casualties. I want to congratulate the mine management concerned on the way in which they acted in that time of crisis, and I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Office of the Government Mining Engineer which plays a part in respect of safety on mines and which has to see to the working conditions on mines. When one considers that there are about 763 000 people employed on the mines in the Republic, one realizes that the safety of a large number of workers is at stake. The Office of the Government Mining Engineer keeps a watchful eye on conditions on the mines by carrying out 3 522 underground and 2 596 above-ground inspections per annum. These are statistics which are probably a year or two old.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to refer to the mines on the Free States goldfields. The mines in the Transvaal have been referred to. I just want to say that there are also a considerable number of mines in the Free State.

In conclusion I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to those mining authorities that are doing everything in their power to make those mines aesthetically attractive. They are very neat places. There are beautiful lawns and trees. Their buildings and structures are in a sound condition. If this were not the case, the Free State goldfields would perhaps look completely different.

Mr. Chairman, in the relatively limited time left to me, I shall try to refer to all the speakers who have taken part since I spoke last. I want to begin by thanking some of the hon. members on this side of the House for their constructive and positive contributions. They did not call for replies from me, but the trouble they took and the information they conveyed to us in their speeches must be mentioned. I should like to thank the hon. member for Geduld for the emphasis he laid on South Africa’s strategic importance and in particular, the positive emphasis he laid on the fact that we do not wish to misuse this strategic importance, but that there must be appreciation for our reliability in faithfully providing minerals, despite the ungrateful treatment we receive from the rest of the world, and for the fact that we never threaten to use our mineral importance as a weapon. I wish to convey my sincere thanks to him for his positive emphasis of an important matter.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made an interesting contribution about fuel conservation. I wish to endorse his plea wholeheartedly. I am not quite sure whether I agree with him about the treading on eggs— that is an exercise which we Nationalists are not very well acquainted with—but perhaps it was important for the other side of the House, who know a great deal about that.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Newcastle for a very sound and compact contribution on Escom’s achievements. I think he succeeded, in the course of a 10-minute speech, in singling out the most important positive aspects. In particular I wish to thank him for his emphasis of the increase in productivity achieved at Escom and the trouble that is taken by them in this regard.

The hon. member for Heilbron contributed an interesting discussion of the question of coal recovery and referred in particular to technical problems and possibilities in this regard. As far as his statement of the problems relating to surface disturbances is concerned, I wish to give him the assurance that the department is at present negotiating with the S.A. Agricultural Union and the Chamber of Mines and that we hope to find an acceptable formula for these mining methods which may be reflected in legislation in the next session.

The hon. member for Carletonville and the hon. member for Welkom once again gave effective answers to the hon. member for Brakpan. Both of them made positive reference to the pension issue and to what has been achieved in that regard. I associate myself with their exposition. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Welkom for his general elucidation of the problems of the mineworker and of the attitude of the Government in this regard, and for his effective reply to the hon. member for Langlaagte, who accused us of insensitivity with regard to the safety of the mineworker. To the hon. member for Carletonville I just want to say this: The problem of pensions that do not mature because people resign and then draw the accumulated pension contributions, is a general problem and is not only encountered on the mines. Accordingly, consideration has already been given by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, as it was then known, to possible solutions. This is in the process of negotiation and consideration. The rectification will have to come from that department and not from us, but I agree with him that there is a problem.

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to refer to several of the other speakers.

†The hon. members for Pietermaritzburg North, Pietermaritzburg South and Port Elizabeth Central all referred to solar energy in one way or another. They also referred specifically to the problem of the rural Blacks and the lack of energy in the form of electricity or other forms and the problems created thereby. I want to advise them that specific research is being carried out by the CSIR in this regard. There is a special programme for this, and solar energy is deemed to be especially applicable in this regard. Appropriate research is being done in this direction. The problem is being looked at and we hope that something positive can come to the fore. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, who said that the main reason for rural Blacks coming to the cities is that they are in a quest for electricity. I really think that is one of his most famous far-fetched statements so far.

You are exploiting it.

They come looking for job opportunities and the solution lies in decentralization, in the creation of job opportunities at the right places. This will also bring prosperity to those places, it will make the provision of power there an economic proposition and will resolve the problem you discussed at the outset, because the electricity will then be there.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke made the point far better than I was able to do.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central specifically reminded me that I owe him a reply on tax concessions vis-à-vis solar power. I want to say that we are looking into the possibility and the validity and the value of tax concessions to promote energy conservation in general and the better utilization of energy. I do not think we should pin-point just one alternative and one possibility for this type of exercise. Depending upon our conclusions and depending upon the availability of funds and that sort of thing, this is something we can look at in the future, and we are looking into it at the moment. The hon. member also referred to daylight saving time and to a departmental study that has been done in this regard. In order to save time, I am perfectly happy to let him have a copy of that departmental report, and I think he will then be able to deduce the reasoning behind the situation as it is at the moment.

Will he see any daylight?

Knowing the hon. member, that is very improbable.

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North went on to discuss electrical power-shedding.

†He complained that notice should be given. Where possible, we obviously try to give notice, but Escom does not always get notice of a problem which necessitates the shedding of power. So there are two types of situations. However, wherever possible, advanced notice of load-shedding is given and the co-operation of major consumers in the voluntary load-shedding scheme is really lessening the problems associated with Escom’s present shortfall in power capacity. I do not want to predict it firmly, but I sincerely hope, and I have good grounds for this, that 1982 will be easier than 1981 was in this regard.

*The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke made a positive contribution on Escom. He complained about the delay due to a shortage of wooden poles. It is true that there is a problem. The problem was aggravated by the tremendous growth in the demand by Escom, but I can tell him that Escom is negotiating with the suppliers and we hope that the supply problem will to some extent be capable of being resolved by way of in-depth negotiations. The hon. member went on to discuss the problems of the Western Transvaal. He is probably aware that I personally have also taken cognizance of that by way of receiving a delegation, and we have the cooperation of Escom to do everything in its power. As he knows, and I just want to repeat this, we hope that due to our waiting a little longer, the standard of supply can also be a little higher and at the same time, that it can be somewhat wider in extent.

I now come to the hon. member for Langlaagte. He began by making a somewhat oblique reference to loans and Escom and interest rates that were causing difficulties. I agree with him. Rising interest rates cause everyone difficulties. However, I wish to assure him that the large capital amounts that Escom borrows are not borrowed without due consideration. They fit into an overall plan with regard to financing loans. They are cleared by the Treasury within the framework of an overall plan and very careful consideration is given to the problems that exist in this regard. Because this problem was perceived some time ago, the element of capital development has been built into the tariff— many people are opposed to that—to ensure that there will be a better balance in this regard.

Then, too, that hon. member and the hon. member for Durban North tried to exploit the R5 levy politically. To begin with I just wish to say this: He must go and ask a voter who has struggled for a long time to obtain a permit, or who has been refused a permit, whether he prefers this system or not. He must then weigh up against this the delays caused due to our situation of a shortage of manpower and the delays to other work that are caused because technical staff have had to be withdrawn. I now wish to put a few arguments to that hon. member in reply to his effort to make politics out of something that was intended to make matters easier for the motorist. In the first place, the hon. member for Langlaagte said that we now wanted people who were in trouble, to pay money. I just wish to remind him of this: I have never heard him object, neither while he was in the NP nor while he has been in the CP, to an additional levy at an emergency chemist. That is a question of medicine; it is a question of sick people, but nevertheless it is logical. This man has to stay open late. He has additional expense; he has to pay his assistant overtime, etc. Therefore there is an additional levy.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member must now take his own medicine. I listened to you without saying a word even though—I must say—I was so irritated that I felt like screaming.

That I did not want to do.

I now come to the next argument. What is the effect of a R5 levy? It sounds terrible. The tank of a large car takes 90 litres. The tank of a medium or smaller car takes 60 litres. If that hon. member’s arithmetic is correct, he will work out that the levy on a full tank—surely everyone must plan so that he does not have to pay a R5 levy on 2 litres—varies from 10% to 15% per person. This applies to a small car and is by no means an unreasonable levy. Petrol tanks have been increasing in size. The hon. member for Durban North is concerned about taxi drivers and doctors. I want to give him the assurance that very few of them have applied for permits. The fact is this: If one has filled up one’s car at 6 o’clock then, if one has a medium sized car, one can travel 500 kilometres before one needs to fill up again. Therefore only people who have to travel long distances are concerned here.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I have very little time. If I reply to your question now, then I cannot reply to the previous speakers.

Must motorcycle owners also pay the R5 levy?

I do not know yet. We have not considered motorcycles in this regard. We shall give the matter some thought. In this regard I just wish to say to the Committee that the long range of cars really takes the sting out of this; we must weigh up against this levy the inconvenience to a person of having to obtain a permit and the expenditure he incurs because after all, he has to travel from his home or his place of employment, and this affects his productivity because in the normal course he has to obtain the permit in office hours; surely, then, this is a very small levy to make it easier and more convenient for him and give him greater freedom of movement. There is no bureaucrat to tell one that one may or may not travel. It is his own free choice. I honestly think that hon. members ought to be positive about this and ought not to make political capital out of it. The hon. member for Langlaagte went on to try and make political capital out of the safety of the mine-worker. I can understand his concern. We, too, are concerned, but the whole tone in which he says it suggests that the CP is concerned, but that the National Party adopts a hard, cold, unsympathetic attitude towards the mineworker.

No, you must not take offence.

I have the same objection to the speech by the hon. member for Brakpan.

You are really extremely touchy.

I am not touchy.

No, you are very touchy.

I wish you could see yourself at a distance, because then you would see how you radiate a negative attitude which is really irritating.

Just go and read our speeches again quietly.

The hon. member for Virginia complained about the treatment of people at the Medical Bureau. He did not raise a specific complaint, and I just wish to say to him that if there are people who are not being treated effectively, who are being unfairly treated, any hon. member is welcome to report anything of the kind to me. In the few cases where this has happened in the past, a proper investigation has been ordered. The Medical Bureau has an enormous task and in general it succeeds exceptionally well in treating people effectively without injuring their human dignity in the process.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban North who made a plea with regard to the shareholding of Sasol. To begin with, I want to say to him that it is intended that there will be further issues in due course. The fact is that Sasol II and III will be able to enter the share market again when these institutions begin to show a profit. I should say that the hon. member would recognize that as a sound approach. However, the hon. member is labouring under a misapprehension. At this stage, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central rightly said, it is quite possible for the private sector to begin a Sasol IV now. Sasol has said that the technology is available. They could launch a company now, they could market shares in this regard now and in this way obtain the approximately R5 000 million that this would cost. Why do they not do this? I shall tell the Committee why. It is because they also tell us that the risk with regard to alternative fuel, etc., is too great, that it is too big an undertaking and they are even asking for involvement by the State in new projects. At the time of the announcement we had hoped that we should eventually be able to transfer the matter to the hands of the private sector. They have now come back to us with these submissions and told us: We cannot quite make it. We shall have to have some form of additional assistance from the State apart from what you are already giving us.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to tiger’s eye.

†While it is true that a problematical situation arose before control was introduced, that situation has now been sufficiently tightened up. The negative effects which we are still suffering are a result of the pre-control era and not as a result of lack of control since control has been introduced. There have been some illegal and indiscriminate exports, but the matter is firmly in hand at the moment. I share the hon. member’s concern about the position of tiger eye producers in South Africa at this point in time, but unfortunately I think it will still take a number of years before the situation stabilizes to a greater extent.

The hon. member also referred to the question of cartels. Escom, I can give him the assurance, is satisfied that they have succeeded at all times in drawing the best tenders from suppliers. As a matter of fact, they had a very long discussion with the journalist who originally picked up this American commission’s report and I have an idea that they have convinced him of the truth of what I have just said. I can give members the assurance that at this point in time we are getting tenders which are extremely favourable to Escom and to South Africa. Competition is strong.

*In the total market for machinery for the generation of electricity of the size we are speaking about here, Escom buys more or less one third of the total purchases in the whole world. Therefore we are so important to the producers throughout the world that there is extremely strong competition to obtain these tenders, that favourable concessions are made by the Governments of the countries where this equipment is manufactured to make those manufactures more competitive so as to obtain these tenders. If at some early stage in the past, cartels were ever a danger on the world market, then at this stage they are definitely no longer a danger.

I now come to the hon. member for Constantia. He discussed a few matters.

†Firstly, he referred to the storage of medium activity waste and asked where such waste would be stored. I can give him the assurance that we will not decide on the basis of our personal likes and dislikes of MPs which of course takes him off the hook to a certain extent. I can assure him that the safety of the public and security and safety generally will be the guideline which will lead us. We are considering possibilities at the moment and no decision has been taken. As soon as a decision is taken an announcement will be made. The risk involved will be as minimal as it can be. I do not think there is any need for concern in this regard.

*The hon. member says that our difficulty is that we are still in the “laager”. That is why we have a petrol boycott; I take it he says that that is why we have an arms embargo; that is why we have to have secrecy in regard to our petrol supplies; that is why we must impose secrecy with regard to atomic energy, etc. Now I want to ask him a question. The only logical conclusion I can draw on the basis of that argument is that in fact it is justified to impose boycotts against South Africa.

Come on.

Oh yes. If the boycotts against us in this department’s field of operations are unjustified, why, then, does he say we must change and then the boycotts will disappear? If one argues as he does, there is no other logical conclusion but that he is implying that the boycotts are justified and until the National Party’s policy is changed, they will continue to be justified. That is my first point.

It does not justify your policies.

Secondly, let us look at what he did this evening. He took an article from the Sunday Times which alleges that a certain Chiavelli is an oil magnate and links this to the oil supply to South Africa.

That is what the article did.

No, the article did not do so clearly; you did it more clearly. Let us now ask the hon. member why he did so. He has no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Why does he do it? He is a member of the House of Assembly.

But you are the right person to approach.

He is a member of the House of Assembly and this House of Assembly, the legislative authority of this country, has made a law, the Petroleum Products Act, section 4A(1) of which reads as follows—

except—

This is the law of the land as passed by the legislative authority of South Africa. If that hon. member had said in public what he has said here, he would have broken the laws of the country. Have we reached the stage where the privilege of this House is used to break the law? [Interjections.] Oh yes.

But you can give the information. You have got the discretion.

Yes, that is correct, but why do you think the legislature saw fit to place an Act on the Statute Book providing that this is information that should not be bandied about in public.

But you could provide it here.

Of course I can provide it, but I do not act in conflict with the spirit of the country’s laws. If you want to act in conflict with the spirit of the country’s laws—surely this is just as public as a newspaper, it is just as public as any of the other media. There sits the whole Press. You know it.

Yes, but you have a discretion.

It is a sick argument to say that what the law prohibits from being published in the newspaper can be bandied about the floor of this House. No, then you must use your position as co-legislators to have the Act changed, without trying to slip in by the back door and create all kinds of suspicion in peoples’ minds. It is totally irrelevant whether this sensational article has anything to do with our oil supply or not. The hon. member has no grounds on which to draw any inference from that article. There are no factual grounds which point in any way to the inference he did draw or to what he insinuates is made of it in the article itself.

Oh, good, now you are replying to him.

I charge him with doing that. I am not going to tell you whether it is true or not.

Now you are not replying to him.

It is not fitting here. Even if one knew exactly what the situation was, and I do know, I would be acting in conflict with the spirit of the Act if I were to reply. There is a reason for the provisions of this Act. Let me furnish that reason. Let us assume for a moment that an hon. member here has confidential information—I am not referring to a tale from the Sunday Times such as that which the hon. member raised here—to the effect that company X is an agent supplying oil to South Africa, and he does what the hon. member did and stands up here and asks whether it is true that company X does so and why are you keeping it secret, what do you think will happen to company X? What do you think the enemies of South Africa do? Do you think that would endanger the oil supply to South Africa, yes or no? Or do you not care? I am sorry to see the day when a matter about which there has been absolute accord so far between us and the official Opposition—an accord which was not explicit but which we could simply accept on the basis of our recognition of everyone’s loyalty to South Africa—that this accord in regard to this matter is broken. I am very sorry about that. The hon. member is very rapidly acquiring a reputation for being a person who does not really concern himself with sound and wise practices that apply in this House and that have developed in the interest of South Africa and out of loyalty to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order! Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member for Constantia is not prepared to be in accord with practices which are in accord with loyalty to South Africa?

Will the hon. the Minister just say what he meant by those words?

Mr. Chairman, there are sound practices born of loyalty to South Africa, and the conduct of that hon. member is not in accord with those practices.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to rule whether that is parliamentary.

I infer from the speech of the hon. the Minister as he has now explained it that he has not directly questioned the loyalty to South Africa of the hon. member for Constantia, and I therefore rule that the hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by thanking all hon. members who have taken part. I have one more note here. The member for Durban North pointed out the difference between the labour figures in statistics and in our annual report. It is a question of definition. We shall go into the matter, but I am quite sure this can be explained scientifically and we shall provide you with the explanation. I think I have now replied to the questions of all hon. members. There was one minor matter and that was whether the D tariff of Escom was differentiated or not. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked that. The answer is: Yes, it is differentiated. It also differs from undertaking to undertaking.

I think we have had a good debate. Except for some discordant notes by a few speakers I want to thank the speakers of the Opposition Parties for their constructive contributions. I am also very grateful to the members on this side for their constructive contributions. I think we have spotlighted this important field effectively from several angles. We have had a good exchange of opinions and I look forward to a future debate in which we can follow up and in which I shall be able to report back on the further development of our energy and mineral policy, to which we are devoting a great deal of attention.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? In view of the fact that there is apparently a tariff D differentiation between the areas, will he give consideration to giving the farmers in the areas where electricity is being subsidized by the Government, the same privilege that industries and private users will get?

Mr. Chairman, the subsidies for industries are a matter of decentralization; to create job opportunities there, to get people so far as to move from where they are and go and establish themselves in those areas. The farmers also provide job opportunities, and I am very sympathetically disposed towards the farmers. But you must realize that the farmer’s electricity, too, is dealt with differently to some extent. We must consider this from various points of view. The question is: Must this affect electricity only, or must the farmers also be given decentralization benefits? This is something we could perhaps discuss in another debate. We must take an overall view of this. If a farmer is there now and he employees X number of workers, and creates an additional Y number of job opportunities, should he not qualify in general for decentralization benefits? In my opinion, however, this is not a debate which belongs under mineral and energy affairs. Nor do we pay the subsidy for decentralization to the industries. Escom gets it full tariff. The subsidy is paid by a different department, because that is part of a different discipline. Therefore the matter is not at issue in this debate.

Our task is to consider the high tariffs paid by the small-scale consumer in the rural areas—the farmer and the small municipality. This troubles us. We must investigate methods of improving this. Only last year we announced certain methods. We are doing our best in this connection. We have great sympathy with these people. But subsidies are not a matter for our department. I thank you.

Vote agreed to.

The Committee rose at 21h36.