Mr Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour?

I think this is the first time that the hon the Minister is handling this portfolio in this Committee. I should like to say that we wish him well with his appointment and we are sure that he will do an excellent job in this particular portfolio.

I also noticed yesterday that Mr Du Plessis, the Director-General, is moving to the Department of Industries and Commerce. We also wish him well in his new portfolio.

When I was given this portfolio at the beginning of this year, I saw it as a low-profile, highly technical portfolio. Indeed, something of a political backwater. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Little did I realize that I was entering into a Harold Robbins-Arthur Hailey world of intrigue, secret deals, leaks, etc. In fact, Dallas these days seems a little dull.

Before I come to energy affairs, I should like to say a few words about mineral affairs. South Africans are inclined to take our mineral industry for granted. I should like to spend just a few minutes on the importance of mining to South Africa. Arising from this I should like to make some policy recommendations.

After the United States and Canada, South Africa is the largest mineral producer in the Western World. I do not want to bore the Committee with figures, but I do think the following figures are important. In terms of the known world mineral reserves we are ranked as the world leader for manganese (78%), platinum (77%), vanadium (49%), chrome (73%), gold (51%), fluorspar (34%) and andalusite/sillimanite (34%). We are the largest producer of platinum (48%), gold (55%), vanadium (34%), chrome (39%) and andalusite (39%). In this respect I am referring to the broader South Africa. We are the largest exporters of platinum (74%), gold (59%), vanadium (55%), chrome (40%), manganese (59%), vermiculite (78%) and ferrochrome (40%). It is no exaggeration to say that our minerals are an international resource.

But let us look at the impact of mining on our domestic economy. Last year the value of South African mineral production was in excess of R16,174 million. Of this R13,716 million was exported. In terms of the national accounts, mining accounts for 11% of our GDP. This is a complete underestimation of the importance of mining to our economy because it ignores the multiplier effect of mining, for example, all the stores and supplies which are purchased by the mining industries. Without this money many of our manufacturing and retail concerns could not exist. Indeed, I have read that it is estimated that mining, directly and indirectly, accounts for nearly a quarter of our GDP. The mining industry employs approximately 700 000 people and pays out R3,563 million in salaries per annum.

We are the largest exporter of non-fuel mineral commodities in the world, exporting some 43 minerals to 90 odd countries. If you look at our exports, mining accounts for approximately 70% of our total exports. Just think of the impact of mining domestically. Think of the importance of, for instance, the coal industry with regard to electricity generation and the feed stock for our chemical industry. Just think of the use of limestone by the cement industry; the use of phosphate by the fertilizer industry. We all know the importance of the mining sector, particularly the gold mining industry, as a generator of income tax. It would in fact be true to say that the amount of income tax we pay as individuals is intimately linked to the fortunes of the gold industry.

In the light of the undoubted importance of mineral and energy affairs, I find it strange that there is no select committee for this porfolio. We have a select committee for Posts and Telegraphs, a select committee for SATS and one for Irrigation Matters. We also have a select committee on Public Accounts. All of these are important committees. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not feel that there is a need for a select committee on Mineral Affairs and Energy. I believe that such a committee could play an important role. I believe that there is a vital need for legislators to be as well informed as possible about the affairs on which they legislate. This is not always easy because of the pressure of work and the time restraints. Moreover, we must realize that we are dealing with a portfolio that is extremely complex and often very technical. One just needs to read the annual report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs to realize the complexity of the portfolio. I may just add that it is a very good report. I am not suggesting that there are important matters that are not being investigated. I am sure they are being discussed within the Department. What I am saying, however, is that unless the legislative branch of Government is being briefed on an ongoing basis, if we are not intimately involved, the calibre of our decision making must suffer. A one day debate is not enough. I believe that such a committee could act as a clearing house of assembling and distributing much useful information. Take, for example, the question of mining accidents. This is a matter that has received a fair amount of coverage in the Press lately. Here I should like to quote from the annual report of the Government Mining Engineer. The report says:

The report goes on to add—

The report then concludes in respect of that particular question by saying that “it will be necessary to make a big effort in 1984 to tighten up on standards and supervision”. I believe that a select committee such as the one that I have suggested could play an important role in this regard. I believe that reports relating to mining accidents could be submitted to this committee. The committee could then evaluate and consolidate the various reports. I do not see such a committee as investigating accidents, but purely as a clearing house. It could publish a summary of its findings and also make recommendations—this is the important thing—as to how such accidents could possibly be averted in the future. I think when it comes to mining there is little that other countries can teach us in the technical sphere, but as regards the question of safety there might be things that we can possibly learn from other countries. It seems to me that the question of mining safety is one that is attracting the interest of Black trade unions. This is perfectly understandable. One would be surprised if they were not concerned with the question of workers’ safety. I believe that this could become a critical area in the future and therefore we should handle it carefully. I believe that we should start taking steps now to find a solution to the problem. I believe that a committee such as the one I have suggested would be able to receive reports and evidence from all interested parties and evaluate them as objectively as possible.

I should now like to turn to the question of energy affairs. I think it would be true to say that the question of energy affairs in South Africa has bobbed about in a sea of some uncertainty. I am glad that it has finally found a home in the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. One hopes that now that it has been combined with mineral affairs we are entering into a period where we will in fact have the time to work out very clear and concerted policies with regard to energy matters, particularly now that the oil prices seem to be subsiding. Hopefully it is not so much a question of management by crisis.

Our civilization is based on the production and use of large amounts of energy. Indeed, there is a very close correlation between gross domestic product and energy consumption. That is in fact one of the best yardsticks one can have of the economic well-being of a country. We are fortunate in South Africa that we have plentiful coal reserves. Indeed, I sometimes think that we tend to play down the important role of coal in the South African economy. You hear a lot of talk about gold, platinum and manganese, but I think we sometimes take coal for granted. We forget that it accounts for approximately 80% of our energy requirement and is vital feed stock for our growing chemical industry. Moreover, it is also becoming an important source of export earnings, having earned us R1 132,4 million last year. I believe we should not take our coal reserves for granted. I know we have large coal reserves, but I think we should now be investigating the use of all possible energy sources. Here one thinks of things like solar energy, nuclear energy and the use of hydroelectric power from our neighbouring states. Let me say immediately that we in the PFP welcome the agreement which was signed on Wednesday relating to Cahora Bassa and we hope that it will signal a whole new era of co-operation between South Africa and its neighbours.

I believe that in this area, too, a committee such as I have recommended could play a valuable role. Much information is available within the department as well as overseas. However, this information needs to be evaluated and made available to the public. Where is there a greater need for an objective evaluation than in the area of nuclear energy? Unfortunately I do not have time to delve into that.

I should now like to come to the question of oil procurement. Let me say that I believe the hon the Minister has inherited a totally unsatisfactory situation. He has what I would classify as a combination of a lawyer’s and novelist’s dream. Just consider the position in South Africa at the present moment. Firstly we had the Salem affair, which it appears cost us R30,5 million. Then there is the court case between Mr Marino Chiavelli and Mr Taki Xenopoulus, which is said to involve R130 million. This appears to be a private problem in which no public money is involved. Then we have a court case between Mr Maurice Sellier, Trade and Technology and a Middle Eastern businessman, Mr Ezra Nonoo, against Sasol, the SFFA and the honorary Consul-General for Peru. This—I can only go on what I have seen in the Press—is said to involve R270 million. Whether this figure is correct I do not know. Then there were reports about the sniffer plane incident, which according to the newspapers cost us approximately R4,9 million. Lastly, there is of course the matter which the hon the Leader of the Opposition has raised with the hon the Prime Minister.

Let me say that we in the PFP appreciate that the oil business is not an easy one and that some of those who are involved in it are, to put it mildly, extremely nimble. Take for example an article which appeared in one of the world’s leading business magazines, Fortune, and which is freely available in South Africa. The article appeared under the title “Secrets of Marc Rich”. Marc Rich and his partner, Pinky Green, are charged with one of the biggest tax fraud cases in American history. Rich, Green and their privately held Swiss parent company and a subsidiary that operated in the United States are indicted for violating the now defunct controls on oil prices to create $105 million in income, and then moving profits out of the United States to escape paying $48 million in tax. It seems to me that it is a matter of principle for oil traders not to pay tax. They also face charges of trading with the enemy because they bought oil from Iran during the 1980 hostage crisis. I give this information because I believe it is necessary for the public to know the type of people that can be involved in the oil trade. I am not saying that everybody in the oil industry is like them, but there are certainly some who seem to be doubtful characters. The case I have cited is indeed an interesting one. In 1973 the United States introduced price controls on oil in order to prevent companies from making undue profits on old oil stock from the rapid escalation in the oil price. There was a price level set for the “old oil” and a separate price level was set for the “new oil”. Finally, there was “stripper oil”, ie oil obtained from the wells producing less than ten barrels per day. On this oil there was no price control. Obviously, if one could sell “old oil” as “stripper oil” one could make a considerable profit. To abuse the rules all that was needed was to find a re-seller who was prepared to reliable his controlled oil as “stripper oil”. What happened was that they passed the oil along from supplier to supplier. This chain of suppliers was called a daisy chain. At times the same oil could pass through 16 intermediaries.

According to the United States Government, Rich sold controlled oil to a company called West Texas Marketing Corporation. Eventually, this oil came back via the daisy chain to Rich’s company as stripper oil. It is estimated that in 1980 when some controlled oil went for about $7 a barrel, Rich could have made more than $25 a barrel. Rich, however, is alleged to have then designed an even more ingenious scheme. It was this scheme which was to become the basis of the United States Government’s tax fraud case. The new scheme had two parts. It started off with the West Texas Marketing Corporation selling controlled oil into a daisy chain and getting it out as uncontrolled stripper oil. Instead of selling the oil to Marc Rich International at below market prices, as in the past, West Texas Marketing Corporation sold it at its full value. The profit were put into a “pot” belonging to Marc Rich’s company. As profits built up, a new set of transactions was entered into in order to drain them outside the domain of the US tax authorities. This is how it worked. Marc Rich AG in Zug would sell oil to West Texas Marketing at the market price. West Texas Marketing sold the same cargo to a Panamanian subsidiary of Marc Rich AG called Rescor at a loss. This loss was charged to the . “pot”. Rescor then sold the cheap oil at the market price. The result was that the taxable profits in the United States were transferred out of the domain of the United States tax regime. When the authorities twigged on to what was happening they subpoenad for thousand of documents. Marc Rich AG refused to comply, at first arguing that they were a Swiss company that was beyond the authority of a United States subpoena. Then they fell back on the argument that Swiss secrecy laws prevented them from handing the documents over. They then secretly sold Marc Rich International to their Zug partner, Alexander Hackel, who changed the name of the company to Clarendon. These people are very cautious and Rich has now claimed Spanish citizenship and Pinky Green Bolivian citizenship in order to make their extradition even more difficult. They are obviously unwilling to go back to the United States because as at mid-January 1984 they had accumulated fines of $8 million in the United States and these are increasing at the rate of $50 000 per working day.

I have quoted from this article for two reasons. Firstly, to show that I am not exaggerating when I say that the people who operate in the international oil market are extremely nimble. I think JR Ewing would actually be out of his depth. He would not be able to compete.

He is a novice.

That is correct.

The second point that I wish to make is that an obsession with secrecy can become counterproductive because it can create the environment in which those who want to operate illegally, as in the case of the Salem affair, can do so. Let us be honest, a lot of international oil traders are like the people in the case I have quoted. The less that is known about their activities the easier it is to act illegally if they want to do so.

I appreciate that the situation that South Africa found itself in in 1979 when the Shah of Iran’s government fell, was a critical one. One can appreciate that at that time there might have been a need for such secrecy. However, today the situation has changed. On page 69 of the report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs the following comment is made:

That is the petroleum fuel price:

The international market is considerably easier at the moment than it was then. This is general knowledge. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to look at the whole question of the secrecy surrounding the oil situation anew. Indeed, I should like to see that particular situation reviewed by a select committee of Parliament. I believe we cannot continue to have a situation where funds taken from the public are not carefully scrutinized. We allow the Auditor-General to audit the Special Defence Account, and this is of critical importance to South Africa. There can be few things that are more sensitive than the Special Defence Account. The argument that companies such as SFFA and the SOF are private companies and should not be audited by the Auditor-General does not hold good. They are obtaining their funds in a way which is totally different from that in which other private companies obtain their funds. They obtain their funds from a levy which is placed on every litre of petrol sold in South Africa. That levy is determined by Ministers and those funds are generally considered by the public to be public funds. In the case of the National Road Fund, which also gets a share of the petrol levy, they are audited by the Auditor-General.

In conclusion, let me say to the hon the Minister that the PFP realizes that he has a difficult task. We will co-operate with him wherever we can. However, there are certain functions which we must perform if we are to have any value as an opposition whatsoever. These are the traditional functions performed by any opposition worthy of the name in a democratic system, namely to see that all public money is spent in the manner it was intended to be spent. Where we come across cases where we believe that that has not been the case we will take steps to call the Government to account. There are three questions that I believe we must ask ourselves at the present moment in regard to the matter raised by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Let us cut out all the innuendoes and so forth, let us get to these three basic questions that have to be answered, namely—

1. 1. Is it true that the SFFA paid more for certain oil than the contracted price?
2. 2. If this is so, was the responsible Minister aware of it?
3. 3. If the SFFA did in fact pay more than the contract price, who got the money and where is it?

We shall try to find the answers to those questions because we believe it is our duty to the public of South Africa to do so.

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by sincerely congratulating the hon the Minister, who is dealing with this Vote for the first time this morning, on his appointment as Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. His training and academic background pre-eminently equip him to deal with great thoroughness with this Vote. We therefore want to wish him everything of the best on the road ahead, and also assure him of our support.

Since we have the former Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the present Minister of Manpower, with us here, I should also like to tell him that we very much enjoyed working with him and that we thank him for the great and important work he did for our country under this portfolio.

†I should also like to congratulate the hon member for Edenvale on his appointment as the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on mineral and energy affairs. I have a very high regard for the hon member. I think he has a positive approach to matters of this nature. I appreciate this and I am sure that he will be able to make a valuable contribution as regards mineral and energy affairs. His speech this morning showed this. I should like to wish him well in this position.

*We have also taken note—I almost want to say with regret—of the fact that we must take leave of the Director-General of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Mr Sarel du Plessis. We have a great regard for him as a person and as an official, and the fact that he is leaving is a great loss to us. At the same time, however, his new department will benefit greatly. We should like to wish him everything of the best in his new post.

We are also fortunate in having obtained the services of a new Director-General, Dr Louw Alberts. We should also like to congratulate him very sincerely on his appointment. We know him to be a very competent person and wish him everything of the best on the road ahead.

In his speech the hon member for Edenvale referred, amongst other things, to the matter of the acquisition of crude oil, about which there has been quite a bit of conjecture in the Press over the past few days. The hon the Prime Minister quite clearly put forward the Government’s standpoint on this matter during the discussion of his Vote and in Press statements. He appealed to all parties to refrain from any further comment and speculation until such time as the Advocate-General had completed his investigation. He also give the assurance that the Advocate-General would make his findings known to Parliament and that if malpractices were found to have occurred, or if it were found that there had been any corruption, the guilty parties would be brought to book and the public kept informed. I think the hon the Prime Minister’s request is a fair and reasonable one. I therefore do not, this morning, want to venture into this dubious area of speculation in which some parties find themselves.

I prefer to confine myself to the known facts. It is a fact—I think the hon member for Edenvale also referred to this—that prior to 1973 South African oil companies were in a position, via their international parent companies, to meet the crude oil requirements of the South African market. During October 1973 the Yom Kippur war broke out between Israel and Egypt. With a view to exerting political pressure on the West, for specific reasons, the Arab oil-producing countries decided on a 25% oil production cutback on the September 1973 figure, with a further 5% per month cutback from December of that year until their objectives had been achieved. At the same time the aforementioned countries, with the exception of Iran, decided to impose an oil boycott on South Africa. This resulted in South Africa being dependent on Iran, from then on, for more than 90% of its crude oil requirements. The hon member for Edenvale also referred to the fact that by the end of 1978 a political revolution had broken out in Iran, resulting in the overthrow of the Shah’s regime. The new regime then also decided to impose an oil boycott on South Africa. As a result of these circumstances, South Africa was therefore compelled to have recourse to the open market to meet its crude oil needs. At this time crude oil prices on the open market increased sharply to levels far above the official crude oil prices. Of necessity South Africa had to pay these prices in order to satisfy its crude oil needs. Premiums sometimes exceeding $20 a barrel were paid in some cases. This situation forced the Government, from 1980 onwards, to involve the SFF organization, a non-profit-making company, in the acquisition of commercial crude oil supplies.

I think it is important to take note of the policy framework within which the SFF had to operate. Security in the provision of oil had to be a paramount consideration; as far as possible sources for the provision of oil had to be identified; as far as possible negotiations had to take place on a government-to-government basis. In the assessment of specific offers—and apparently there were an untold number of them—the following aspects had to be borne in mind: The extent of the offer, the experience and financial soundness of those making the offer; the quality of the crude oil and its suitability for South African refineries; the access of those making the offers to oil-producing countries and to the shipping market; and the distance of their sources from South Africa. It is therefore clear—and I think this ought to be understood—that the acquisition of crude oil was an extremely difficult task, particularly in cases of the SFF having had to make purchases for refineries with varying needs; and particularly in the case of the circumstances in South Africa requiring a diversification of sources of provision and the use of intermediaries. I think that it is also quite clear, from the results evident in practice—because those are the facts at our disposal, resulting from the course of events since 1981—that the SFF carried out this task with distinction.

A further interesting fact is that it was specifically the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, who is at present being singled out by certain parties in their dubious speculations, and who was in charge of the Ministry of Mineral and Energy Affairs from 1 April 1980 to August 1982, who was responsible for more favourable contracts, for diversification of sources and for bringing about greater security in the furnishing of crude oil to South Africa. My appeal this morning is therefore that in these discussions we should ask ourselves: What do the facts indicate? The facts indicate that as a result of the untiring zeal and perseverance of the SFF and the Government, South Africa has always had sufficient petroleum products to ensure that its economy did not grind to a halt. The facts indicate that owing to the international vendetta being waged against us, the acquisition of crude oil presents a serious problem and, for example, that by the end of 1979 South Africa would only have had a few days’ commercial crude oil supplies left.

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

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

I thank the Whip for his thoughtfulness. The facts indicate that Ministers, officials and others involved displayed unparalleled ingenuity, courage, perseverance and dedication in averting the crisis as far as South Africa was concerned, so much so that today South Africa’s petrol is among the cheapest in the world. The facts indicate that these people deserve praise and gratitude. I therefore think it is a pity that honourable and respected politicians, officials and other parties responsible for these achievements should indiscriminately be comprised when, in point of fact, they deserve a laurel wreath. More than that I cannot and do not want to say about the matter, but I do think that we would be doing South Africa a favour if we were all quietly to await the Advocate-General’s report.

The hon member for Edenvale made a request to the hon the Minister in regard to the establishment of a Select Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs. I think there is a lot of sense in the proposal he made, and it is a matter that one could certainly give profitable consideration.

In this regard I want to say one or two things about the role of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I think one can say that the department’s object is to furnish the private sector with an economic auxiliary service when it comes to the utilization of the Republic’s mineral and energy resources. I think that when this departmental role is taken into consideration, one would be able to say, in regard to its functions in the mineral sphere, that there is never any impression that the department interferes in the free-market process, nor that there is any effort or tendency, on the part of this department, to exercise any form of control. The emphasis, in regard to this sphere of the department’s activities, continues to be on the furnishing of a service and not on the control aspect. I think that in this way the department also does justice to the Government’s policy of the maintenance of free enterprise as basic to our economy.

As far as the department’s sphere of energy activities is concerned, there is evidence of both the furnishing of a service and the exercising of control. Firstly there is the service that is furnished when it comes to providing for the Republic’s crude oil needs. And this has meant the private sector’s functions having had to be taken over during the past decade, fuel prices having had to be subjected to control, conservation measures having had to be introduced and things such as speed limits having had to become the responsibility of this department. I think that one should acknowledge that in carrying out its primary task of furnishing a service the department has, of necessity, been compelled to encroach upon the free-market principle to a certain extent. That is why the question that involuntarily crops up is whether unremitting efforts are being made to devise methods for doing away with the essential control mechanisms when circumstances permit. I therefore want to link up with the hon member for Edenvale in this regard and ask the hon the Minister what his standpoint on this matter is. What course are we adopting in the field of energy? What is our future planning like? Has the time not come for experts to have a round table conference to determine whether we are still on the right course and what our eventual objective should be? Does the hon the Minister not think that it has become essential to have a White Paper on energy planning? I shall, however, leave the matter at that.

I now want to come to another matter that I regard as being of the utmost importance. Large portions of South Africa have recently been ravaged by one of the worst droughts in living memory. Although this state of affairs does, in the final analysis, affect every inhabitant of our country, it is our farming community that is more directly affected by the destructive consequences of a drought. I do not have to elaborate on the importance of the agricultural industry to our country’s economy. The fact of the matter is that one cannot but be concerned about the burden being borne by the agricultural industry at present. The Government has already announced extensive aid schemes, which we also welcome, in several other spheres. The fact of the matter, however, is that a fundamental source of agricultural expenditure is that on electricity. That is why I should like to put this question, and make this request, to the hon the Minister: Could agriculture not be given some or other form of assistance in this sphere? I do not doubt that if assistance were to be forthcoming in this sphere, it would be a great source of relief to our people.

I think I can also say that the discussion of this Vote is taking place in an exceptional year. Apart from the fact that we have a new Minister and a new official opposition spokesman, this is the year in which Koeberg is coming into operation, heralding a new era in the development of South Africa’s energy potential. I think we can look back on a year in which historic events have been the order of the day, for example the decrease in fuel prices. This is also the year in which Dr Louw Albert’s Mintek is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. We should also like to congratulate him on that. This week the Cahora Bassa contract, which embodies great benefits for us, was concluded. All these achievements, all these milestones along the way, attest, I think, to the sound and thorough work being done by our Minister and his department. That is why we would like to congratulate them, thank them for the effort and wish them everything of the best on the road ahead.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Geduld who congratulated the hon the Minister on his appointment to the oldest department of State. In that connection it is perhaps fitting to quote from a speech of W D Malan at the American Mining Congress, where he said the following:

It is very clear that the department of which the Minister is the head is an important department covering a wide field. We want to endorse the fact that he has outstanding qualifications equipping him for the task and we appreciate his honesty and good faith. I should like to add the Conservative Party’s congratulations to those extended to Mr Du Plessis by the hon member for Geduld. Although it is not a promotion, as the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs has said, it is am important milestone in Mr Du Plessis’ career. We greatly appreciate his competence and his pleasant personality. We wish him everything of the best in his future career. We also want to congratulate Dr Alberts very sincerely on this important post of his. We met him at Valindaba, having had the privilege of being taken on a tour through that industry, and we are aware of the fact that that State undertaking is probably—together with heart transplants—one of South Africa’s greatest achievements in the international field. We wish him everything of the best for his new task.

In recording our appreciation of the hon the Minister, let me say that we also sincerely want to accept his apology for having neglected to react to the invitation to address the annual general meeting of the Mine-workers’ Union. We are convinced that there was no intention of insulting that union. It was in a very exemplary fashion that he apologized to the union for the oversight. In that connection he must permit me to put it to him that the Government should take into account that it is suspect as far as White workers are concerned. That is a fact that we must take into account. The Government would be well advised to bridge the widening gap. The circumstances surrounding the Nieuwenhuizen report constitute one of the reasons why I make that allegation, to which I shall be returning at a later stage.

Firstly I should like to refer to a few matters appearing in the annual report, and in the process I shall also be dealing with certain aspects touched upon by the hon member for Geduld. It is gratifying to note that in spite of the economic slump our mineral sales earned us a record amount of R16,174 million. That is 11,6% more than in 1982. On page 17 of the report of the State Mining Engineer it is stated that in general there was a reduction in dust-count measurements at asbestos mines. It is praiseworthy that such a magnificent effort has been made in the fight against one of the most serious of chest ailments.

Coupled with this there is the question of accidents. We share the concern of the competent State Mining Engineer about the high death-rate and the high accident rate and extend our sympathies to the next-of-kin of those who lost their lives during the year under review. At the same time I want to convey my party’s satisfaction, to the hon the Minister and his department, at the fact that they are continuing to keep a sharp eye on the situation and to take steps to combat this which are indicative of their dedication. It should also be borne in mind that conditions in South African mines are not comparable with those in other countries. I want to quote from Die Mynwese, No 3 of 1983, page 4, in which reference is made, in a very interesting article under the heading “Myne kry 5-ster-klassifikasie”, to the question of mining accidents, the death-rate, etc. Let me quote a few passages:

Then mention is made of the fact—and we take note of this—that the conditions in South African mines are not, in actual fact, comparable with conditions in other countries, except perhaps in the case of underground metal mines in the USA. In those mines the death-rate last year was approximately 0,93 in comparison with the 1,25 in South African gold-mines. If, however, one excludes fatal accidents, resulting from pressure bursts, from the gold-mine statistics, ie the accidents that are a direct result of the great depths of such mines, one gets a death-rate of 0,95 per 1 000, and that is only slightly higher than that of the USA metal mines. That is an exceptional achievement, on our part, in the complex situation in which our workers find themselves in the depths of South Africa’s mines. So this is an aspect that gives us a great deal of satisfaction, serving as an incentive to even greater achievements. It is true that the most efficient mines are also the safest. Productivity and safety go hand-in-hand. In these inflationary times this fact is of cardinal importance.

By the way, while public interest is centred on environmental conservation, we must take note of what the State Mining Engineer says on page 17 in connection with the fact that after use the areas utilized for open-cast mining are not tidied up and that the original order is not restored, there now being some talk of the department perhaps having to make use of its powers to put mining magnates on the right track.

In regard to the report relating to energy affairs, which is an interesting report, it is desirable to ask the hon the Minister what his department envisages in connection with the various gas discoveries made in recent years. My impression is that in the search for oil gas has, in fact, been discovered in profitable quantities, and arising out of what the hon member for Geduld said, if would perhaps also be beneficial for the hon the Minister to give attention to the energy aspect. We should like to know what the hon the Minister’s relevant priorities are. The hon member for Geduld mentioned the fact that one should perhaps examine the possibility of an energy planning committee or board.

The hon member for Geduld referred to the question of oil. I want to agree with him that we must play a waiting game as far as that matter is concerned and that we shall subsequently have an opportunity to discuss the matter. The charges have been submitted to the Advocate-General and will possibly be referred to a select committee. We accept or concede that this is a sensitive matter. When the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was responsible for this Vote, he said on occasion that he felt like an oil prostitute. We know that at times the SFF employees have to negotiate with shady characters from society’s twilight zone. The oil, however, was originally purchased—probably still is—from funds in regard to which this House has certain responsibilities. I therefore want to associate myself and my party with the idea of the establishment of a select committee of the House of Assembly to keep a watchful eye on the whole aspect of oil purchases. We have such a Select Committee on Public Accounts, and hon members of the House are responsible enough and are in a position to respect and honour the confidentiality of matters involving oil transactions. This would safeguard the interests of the purchasing organization and the House would be able to meet its obligations to the hon the Minister. The important aspect would be for the House of Assembly to meet its obligations to the South African electorate by keeping an eye on that very important aspect.

In regard to the Cahora Bassa agreements that have been entered into, just a few words. In the past we purchased power from the previous government and also concluded certain transactions with the Mozambique government. We are aware of the fact that the tariffs and premiums at which power was purchased were reasonable. We must bear in mind that the power thus purchased constitutes a mere 8% of the peak demand in South Africa. The Conservative Party’s objection to the contract involves a matter that we shall be discussing in greater detail under another Vote. We have issued a statement in that connection and shall be elaborating on it further. In regard to this aspect we just want to say that whilst obtaining power by way of the establishment of new power stations will result in the possibility of purchasing power at approximately 3c per kilowatt-hour, it is essential for us to give attention to the fact—as in other spheres—that we should be as self-sufficient as possible. By the way, in connection with the question of fuel and speed limits, to which the hon member for Geduld referred, we are not in favour of speed limits being increased. Nor are we in favour of that extra premium having to be paid on weekends. This has been motivated and discussed sufficiently in the past. I just want to make the statement.

I want to come back to the Nieuwenhuizen Report. The circumstances surrounding the Nieuwenhuizen Report indicate that at this juncture the question of pneumoconiosis...

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon member, but since the hon member is now referring to the Nieuwenhuizen Report, I wonder whether he is in possession of the Press statement issued by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs on 29 March, a statement in which it is stated that the administration of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act was being transferred to the Minister of Health and Welfare? Perhaps I should read the statement, or does the hon member know about it?

I am fully aware of the fact that that matter has been referred to the Department of Health, but let me also refer to the White Paper, which states:

There is consequently a further link between the Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I just want to deal with that briefly, if you will permit me to do so.

I just do not want the hon member to discuss anything for which the hon the Minister is no longer responsible.

I shall not do so, but I do want to put it to you that the hon the Minister is still in control of conditions in the mines and in the workplace, where he must take steps to prevent lung diseases, etc, and in consultation with the Minister of Health and Welfare it is also the hon the Minister’s task to examine the relevant new legislation that has come into existence. I am just going to deal with that in broad outline, and I just want to give the hon the Minister the following few dates so that he can know how upset White workers are about the matter of the implementation of the Nieuwenhuizen Commission’s report. The commission was appointed on 4 December 1978. Its report was tabled on 23 March 1982. It was discussed in this same committee on 10 May 1982, the relevant Minister being the one prior to the last Minister. We then waited for comments until 15 June 1982. The White Paper was tabled on 28 June 1983 and now it is almost June 1984. There are very important aspects in that report that are being highlighted in regard to various aspects involving mine-workers and the question of accidents. Since the hon the Minister’s department is one of the departments which will be examining the new legislation and the new dispensation, I want to ask him very seriously to exert the greatest possible pressure on the relevant Minister to grant relief to the types of miners referred to in the report, in certain parts of the White Paper and also in representations made to him and to the rest of the Government about the interests of the mine-workers.

Mr Chairman, let me tell the hon member for Brakpan that I greatly appreciate the calm manner in which he put his case and the perspective he evidenced in regard to specific matters. Many of the things the hon member said are aspects about which I can agree with him, and I do want to associate myself with what he said when he congratulated various bodies related to the mining industry. In regard to the Cahora Bassa scheme and the relevant agreement, and the CP’s standpoint about that, let me say that I find this incomprehensible, to say the least. The hon member did not elaborate on that, however, nor do I intend to reply to it in any detail, except to say that I cannot understand anyone raising any objections about any bargaining that is done for the benefit of the country and its people. I find that sort of thing inexplicable, and it is in that light that I regard the CP’s reaction to this. Of course it is true—and I agree with the hon member about that—that as far as possible the country should be self-sufficient in various spheres. That does not mean, however, that we should not, to our own benefit, be in a position to negotiate when we do not happen to be self-sufficient yet. In regard to the hon member’s attitude to the hon the Minister in regard to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the annual general meeting of the Mine Workers’ Union, let me express my agreement with the initial approach the hon member adopted towards the hon the Minister. I want to add, however, that the “but” that followed, the “but” about the Government having to take note of the fact that this Government was suspect, brought me to the conclusion that the hon member for Brakpan’s good intentions and congratulations, as far as the Minister was concerned, were thereby negatived, because immediately that very clearly implied that...

We are the Opposition.

The hon member says he is the Opposition. I do not begrudge him his function as a member of the Opposition, nor the fact of his pointing out specific problems to the Government. When it is done in this way, however, with such a choice of words, then their slip is showing clearly enough for everyone to see. Let me, however, leave the hon member for Brakpan at that.

Linking up with what the hon member said, in the limited time at my disposal today I very briefly want to discuss the relationship between the responsibility of the State on the one hand, of the employer or the mining houses on the other, and then a third component, that of the employee or the mine-worker as such. I want to state it as a fact that co-operation and recognition of one another’s good faith, and the contribution towards making this country a happy place for all people to live in, are the key words in the confusing times in which we find ourselves at present. And this is directly applicable in the mining industry. The contributions of the State, the mining houses and the employees constitute a unit that makes the contribution to each and everyone involved in the mining industry. Let me go further, however, and say that it is not only of benefit to everyone involved in the mining industry, but also to everyone in this country.

What is the State’s responsibility? The State creates the infrastructure making it possible for the industrial giant to produce. Millions of rand are being spent on railway lines, roads, electricity and other components to make it possible for production to take place, and this is being done for the benefit of those in the mining industry. To motivate this point for hon members, let me refer, for the sake of interest, to the fact that there is a specific infrastructure established by the State for mineral exports. I can, for example refer to the Richard’s Bay project, because in March 1983 that project cost the State R1 550 million, and the aim is to spend a further R1 800 million on the project, giving us a total of R3 350 million. Up to March 1983 an amount of R635 million was spent on the Saldanha Bay project, and the intention is to spend a further R15 million, which will give us a total of R650 million. On the other hand, I also want to focus hon members’ attention on the revenue earned by the State from mines and mining leases, and I refer to the 1983-84 appropriation which indicates that the State received R1 850 million from the mines, and a further R537 million from mining leases, giving a total of almost R2 390 million. I want to indicate that this amount, collected by the State, benefits all the inhabitants, being employed for their benefit, whether they have any ties with the mining industry or not. The State, however, also has a specific responsibility towards mine-workers, a responsibility that the State does not shy away from, and the Department of the State Mining Engineer sets itself the task of ensuring that there are safe and healthy working conditions for its people. The State also has specific legislation preventing the exploitation of mine-workers. The State recognizes the trade unions so that they can act in the interests of their own people. The State has also established the Mines and Works Compensation Fund, which stands at almost R100 million and which has recently been transferred, for administration purposes, to the Department of Health and Welfare. The interesting fact is that mine-workers do not contribute to that Mines and Works Compensation Fund, contributions being made solely by the State and the mining houses.

But employers also have the responsibility of making a contribution. Employers—the mining houses—offer employment to 691 000 people. This is according to the 1980 statistics. Of these, 74 542 are Whites, a little more than 9 000 are Coloureds, approximately 660 are Asians and 606 175 are Blacks. The point I want to make is that here the mining houses are making an exceptional contribution in regard to job opportunities. This costs the mining houses a considerable amount of money. The capital expenditure by the mining houses in 1983—only as far as gold is concerned—was R1 408 million. For gold and coal the 1984 estimate is R2 365 million, with a figure of R2 401 million for 1985. The mining houses are therefore making an exceptional contribution. To manage a mine costs a tremendous amount of money. It is calculated that the establishment of a gold mine costs R540 million over a period of four to six years. In other words, the contributions made by the mining houses also call for recognition. And the research undertaken by them, the housing that is offered to workers, sports facilities, bursaries and loans are all matters which one should bear in mind and for which employers deserve our gratitude.

There are, however, also the employees, the mine-workers, who play an extremely important role. I want to contend that the employees in such a strategic industry, which is so profitable for employers and which affords the State such a large amount of money in taxation, deserve to be treated well. Not only do they deserve to be treated well, but they also deserve to be paid well and to have good conditions of service, even at times when, owing to difficult circumstances, they cannot be fully employed or cannot work at all. To take the argument further, their next-of-kin deserve an equally good pension when the employees are no longer there. I would say that these people deserve the community’s thanks and appreciation for the work that some of them do under very difficult circumstances. I wonder whether everyone is aware of how difficult the circumstances are in which these people find themselves, notwithstanding the fact that everything possible is being done to make the work as safe as possible. To have to go down a mine-shaft in the early hours of the morning, when it is still dark, to go deep into the bowels of the earth and do one’s work under difficult physical conditions, surfacing again late in the afternoon, makes great demands on one. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset may I, on behalf of this side of the House, extend my party’s best wishes to the hon Minister for his handling of this Vote for the first time and I wish him a successful sojourn in his portfolio. I find myself in the same position and with that in mind we will endeavour, as always, to try to be positive, to offer constructive criticism as has always been the way of NRP during a debate. To the outgoing Director-General I say that we wish him well in his new position. On the other hand we look forward to become acquainted with the incoming Director-General. May I say to the officials with whom I have become acquainted in the short while that I have been dealing with the department, how I appreciate their willingness to listen to us, to give us advice and to explain things to us. I look forward to a happy association with them. As far as the latest allegations in regard to the oil purchases are concerned, we should like to place on record our support for the action taken by the hon Leader of the Opposition and also to the hon the Prime Minister who has referred this matter to the Advocate-General. We expect that the controversy will be handled as speedily as possible by the Advocate-General and we look forward to a report being tabled before the end of this session. If that is not possible, may I prevail upon the Minister to see to it that, at the least, we shall have an interim report during the present session.

The fact that we have once again accord with Mozambique holds indefinite advantages to both South Africa and Mozambique. When this scheme was first mooted and put into operation in 1976-77 Escom counted on 1 400 megawatts to be fed into the integrated system of the Republic. Because of this development I believe that they have stopped planning for an additional power station. Unfortunately in 1980 this source of supply of electricity dried up completely but now, with the supply coming back on tap, it certainly will improve the supply and also increase reserve capacity which has a distinct advantage to the assisting of the maintenance of plant. In fact, not having to build an additional power station means that we will save 60 million litres of water as well as 12 400 tons of coal per day and the possibility of capital costs incurred by the erection of a new power station in the future. We must also not lose sight of the fact that originally Cahora Bassa was designed, not only to supply the RSA with bulk electricity but it would at the same time supply Mozambique with power at much cheaper rates than would have been the case had Mozambique built a power station purely for their own purposes. We as a party look forward to this continued co-operation to our mutual benefit.

While on the subject of power, I wish to come to the position of our rural farmer and the cost incurred in getting power to his farm. To refresh our memory of the importance of our farming community, I just wish to make the following observations. Agriculture provides employment to approximately 15% of our economically active population in the Republic. The agricultural sector is also the most important single source of employment for Blacks and this employment takes place away from the metropolitan areas which emphasizes the fact that attempts must be made to retain the existing employment opportunities in the agricultural sector wherever possible. Besides this it is acknowledged that it is essential to the RSA to have a high population of Whites in the rural areas which not only has a strategic advantage but also an economic advantage, especially a social advantage. Our economically sound agricultural sector can make a definite contribution to the realization of the following national economic objectives: The provision of job opportunities, the increase in the real income per capita of the population and a geographic distribution of economic activities. Lastly, the agricultural sector is most important in producing food for our ever-increasing population. I say this because as long as we can supply our own food needs and export this commodity to our neighbouring countries, our independence is assured. However, should the position be reversed and we have to import our main food requirements, we could become a nation of beggars. Escom, as a whole, does a magnificent job as a primary supplier of electricity to the Republic of South Africa, especially with its national grid and its various undertakings spread across the country. However, I believe criticism is due in respect of the charges made to the farming community in the rural areas. Extension charges for new consumers when they get supplied are absolutely prohibitive. Escom is often not in a position to lay the necessary power-lines to supply rural areas because of the shortage of trained manpower and long delays result before power is connected. In this regard I should like to refer to Escom’s report for 1983 which was made available to us a little while ago.

*Under the heading “Rural electrification” the following is said:

†Forty months is an awfully long time. If we want the agricultural sector to remain in the rural areas, for reasons already given, I believe we must seriously reconsider Escom’s position as well as the legal implications of the Act concerning the position of the supply of power to various undertakings and especially in the rural areas to the farming community. As the agricultural sector is approximately 1% of the total users of the system in the RSA, a method must be found to offset the high infrastructure costs incurred in supplying power to the rural areas. For a farmer to pay a monthly extension charge of approximately R500 in some cases plus his unit costs, is completely iniquitous and must seriously affect his already very high input costs. Surely we can find some method of either cross subsidization or the pooling of costs, that is the pooling of infrastructure costs across the whole spectrum of the consumers that will offset these costs incurred in supplying power to our rural areas. When Escom has no trained staff to lay the necessary power-lines to the rural areas—to which I have referred—is it not possible for them to call for tenders and let private enterprise do the necessary work? The point I wish to make is: Is Escom cost effective when it comes to construction work and the time taken? When I say this I am referring specifically to the time that I have mentioned which is 40 months and the escalation in that 40 months. That is where the difficulty lies. Unfortunately time precludes me from elaborating on this issue but one just needs to go back to a few farmers’ associations who had difficulty with Escom in regard to the supply of power. One comes to mind at the moment and that is the Delareyville Farmers’ Association. I believe that this is an area which must be probed, more so when one considers the decentralization policy which usually involves the establishment of industries in rural areas, often areas adjacent to large farming areas. These decentralized industries enjoy very large incentives which often work against the interests of the farmer. To cite but one example, there is the payment of labour. These industries with Government incentives can afford to pay more for their labour than the farmer. I just want to quote from findings of the Study Group on Strategy for Industrial Development under the chairmanship of Dr S J Kleu which brought out a report in 1983. I quote from page 24 of the summary report, paragraph 11.11:

It goes on to say further that the study recommends—

Then I ask the question: Why should the farmer be disadvantaged in respect of power supply? Therefore I respectfully ask the hon the Minister to go into the question of the cost of rural electricity supply to the farmer and see whether he can find a solution for this onerous burden which the farmers are having to bear.

Mr Chairman, may I at the outset state that it is indeed an honour and a privilege to account for the activities of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs for the first time. I wish to thank hon members for the kind words they have extended to me and to the officials of my Department. My intimate involvement in respect of the activities of the Department since my appointment has made me aware of the very fine efforts of the Department to create a sound substructure for economic activity in Southern Africa. In my introductory remarks I shall also touch upon a few subjects which have been raised by the hon member for Edenvale. I also want to avail myself of the opportunity of paying tribute to my predecessors, some of whom are still members of the Cabinet, such as the hon Dr Koornhof, the hon F W de Klerk and my immediate predecessor, the hon P T C du Plessis who is sitting next to me. Their actions speak louder than words and I can only mention that it is my profound conviction that their contributions towards the effectiveness of the Department can hardly be estimated in proper value. I wish to emphasize that I inherited a very well-managed Department in all its spheres of activities. I would also like to congratulate the hon member for Edenvale and the hon member for South Coast on their appointment as official spokesmen for mineral and energy affairs. I am sure that together with the other two hon members, the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member for Geduld, we will develop into a team with very close communication. We have started it already and I think it is very necessary that we should inform each other of important happenings in the Department and its activities.

The effective attainment of objectives is very much dependent on the quality of judgment of participants in management, in the management process and not only on the number of people involved. That applies in particular to this Department. Since my appointment as Minister of this Department I have become aware of the excellent qualities of the components of the mineral and energy team of this Department and its associates as well as the positive attitude of individual team members towards the goals of the Department and that includes the associated parastatal institutions under the Department. We can really be proud of the available expertise and we can appreciate the fact that South Africa as a developing country is presently in a position to participate substantially in the various fields of economic activity of the Western World, be it in the field of nuclear energy, in the field of mineral technology and trade, electricity generation or fuel production. We are not only prepared but in fact geared to guarantee our own economic future and on that point I agree with the hon member for Edenvale. We are also in a position to supply the needs of our allies as well. To achieve this goal, the Director-General of the Department, Mr Du Plessis, played a key role and it is for us in the Department a very sad day to say farewell to this highly respected head of our Department. My colleague, the hon the Minister for Internal Affairs has already announced that Mr Du Plessis will leave the Department towards the end of next month for the very important post of Director-General of Commerce, Industries and Tourism and that he will be succeeded with effect from the 1st of June 1984 by Dr Louw Alberts who is presently president of the Council of Mineral Technology.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to pay tribute to Mr Sarel du Plessis, and in this connection I therefore want to associate myself with all previous hon members. At the very outset I want to thank him for his personal involvement and support in settling me into, and assisting me in, this important department. When I say “settling in”, I virtually mean this in a literal sense. As announced by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, my department and I on the numerous boards and policy committees to which he was appointed and on which he has served, will have to manage without his competent services and extremely valuable contributions. Since as early as 1948 Mr Du Plessis has been in the Public Service, having had a highly esteemed career during which he used and expanded his capabilities and knowledge to become, eventually, the head of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. It is a department that covers a very wide and a very sophisticated field of activity, and in carrying out his daily task, he walked hand-in-hand with the private sector, in its wide-ranging diversity, covering the overall mineral and energy spectrum. This is a post he occupied with great success and a function he very successfully carried out. In the words of Mr Du Plessis himself, let me state that I was not a voluntary participant either, but that I was, all factors considered, a willing associate in this process of transferring Mr Du Plessis. On behalf of the department, the boards, the committees—and I do not think they will hold it against me—also on behalf of the mineral industry and the energy industry, I personally want to thank him for the pleasant and successful association extending over some years. I also want to offer him my support and wish him everything of the best in future as Director-General of an equally important department. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, can really count himself lucky, on losing an equally competent head of a department, to be obtaining a replacement who will certainly not prove a disappointment. Dr De Villiers is a person with a sense of theological values, and I am sure he will not hold it against me for comparing him today to David of old who said: “The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.” At the same time I want to welcome Dr Louw Alberts as the new Director-General of the department. Dr Louw Alberts hardly needs any further introduction. He is an old acquaintance of the department, and definitely not unknown in the mineral and energy world. He had long-lasting ties with the erstwhile Atomic Energy Board, and subsequently in his capacity as President of the Council for Mineral Technology he made an invaluable contribution to both South Africa’s national and international research. As we are all aware, Dr Alberts studied at Rhodes University in Grahamstown, and also at many other international institutions.

That is an excellent university.

Thank you. I think he agrees with you.

From 1946 to 1970 he was professor and lecturer at the University of the Free State and at the Rand Afrikaans University. That is a good combination. From 1971 till 1977 he was vice-president of the Atomic Energy Board, and from 1977 he was Director-General of the National Institute for Metallurgy. Subsequently he was president of the Council for Mineral Technology. This is a post he still occupies. During his term at Mintek, he not only distinguished himself as a scientist, but also as a dynamic executive head and leader of the institution, and I have no doubt that his coming to the department is going to be a great asset as far as we are concerned. We extend a sincere welcome to him, not only on behalf of the department, but also on behalf of all the boards and the committees. I also think I can say this on behalf of the private sector, with which he will have to work hand-in-glove, as did his predecessor.

†Mr Chairman, as we all know, the Republic of South Africa is richly endowed with mineral resources and it is the wish of the Government that the raw materials at its disposal, combined with the knowledge and skills, should be employed towards constructive engagement and the well-being of the inhabitants, all the inhabitants, of the subcontinent.

Looking at the Republic’s mining industry, I expect hon members to know that at the turn of the century, a mine was humorously defined as a hole in the ground with a fool at the bottom and a liar at the top. We all agree that this definition no longer holds and that the mining industry in this country has developed into one of the most scientific and sophisticated industries in the world. I do agree that we sometimes do not appreciate this, as the hon member for Edenvale has so rightly said. The mining industry differs sharply from other sectors of the economy such as the manufacturing sector, the agricultural sector and the commercial sector. Its uniqueness results from a combination of certain factors: First of all, mining concerns the removal of non-replenishable resources, in other words, it is a wasting asset. Secondly, it is a high-risk industry in which the exploration costs may be extremely high. Thirdly, the development and the running of mines are highly capital intensive.

I think the hon member for Virginia referred specifically to the fact that nowadays, the cost of extracting minerals from the earth is very high. Mineral prices in the world market are volatile and in this way the risk factor is increased.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Geduld was quite correct when he said that a certain important atmosphere had to be created in the mining industry. Therefore, the government policies with regard to mining play a vital role in imparting confidence to investors and in maintaining a dynamic industry. South Africa has therefore consistently followed a policy of encouraging mineral development based on the free enterprise system. I think this point was made by quite a number of hon members from all sides of the House. Furthermore, it has also followed a policy of welcoming foreign investment and participation and ensuring security of title for prospecting and mining rights, which is a very important aspect regarding mining in South Africa, because of its wide agricultural implications. Then there is the question of allowing a fair and attractive return in investment, providing a superior infrastructure of rail facilities, harbour facilities and loading facilities, and providing ample and competitively priced electricity to facilitate and encourage further processing. In addition, the State also places a high premium on providing sophisticated research and technical services in the field of geology, metallurgy, nuclear science, health, safety and international mineral commodity intelligence. I think we shall have to give more attention to the latter part of these activities. Considerable amounts had therefore to be spent and are presently being budgeted for in respect of sophisticated research and technical service programmes in these fields. This is the contribution which any developing country has to make if it is desirous of a return on its natural resources. I doubt whether any hon member in this House would object to the expenses that were budgeted for in order to achieve this goal.

Mr Chairman, the return on the Republic’s mineral resources reflects a remarkable portion of the general domestic product and it is therefore worthwhile to dwell upon earnings from mineral production during the 1983 calender year. However, I do not think that I should elaborate on this, because this point has been made very clearly by quite a few hon members; I think the hon member for Edenvale and also the hon member for Virginia pointed this out and also talked about the importance of our mining industry in our economic structure.

*Mr Chairman, before I come to a few remarks about the speeches made thus far by some hon members, I just want to thank the department, all the officials and my own staff for their very ample and extensive support and for helping me to orientate myself within the department over the past four months. I should like to associate myself with hon members who attested here to our very great appreciation for the hard work done by these people and for the competent way in which it was done. I also want to thank all hon members very sincerely for the friendly words they addressed to me. In this connection I also want to thank them, on behalf of the department, for the friendly words they addressed to the department.

As far as I am concerned, the hon member for Edenvale raised a very important point when he spoke about the establishment of a select committee. I do not think he is the only one who spoke about that; I think the hon member for Geduld and the hon member for Brakpan also referred to the fact that there was good reason to give consideration to a select committee of this Parliament. I think I want to content myself with saying that in this connection I have already had preliminary discussions with the Leader of the House about the possibility of the appointment of a select committee. I do not want to elaborate on this any further, because there is a relevant procedure that has to be adopted. I do, however, want to assure hon members who spoke about this that it is one of the aspects receiving attention at the moment, and I particularly want to thank them, too, for the support they have given me and the department in having this matter taken further. Various opinions have been advanced here about the terms of reference and the task of the select committee. The first concerned the controls relating to the financial contributions for the purchasing of crude oil by the SFF Association. That is one that is a little difficult; I shall be coming back to this aspect at a later stage. The second related to the security measures in underground mines. It related to the circumstances in which miners had to work underground. I think the hon member for Edenvale referred to that, and I agree with him that that is an aspect to which the select committee could possibly give quite considerable attention and about which recommendations could possibly be made concerning how the conditions, under which such accidents take place, could be improved. Because we in South Africa have great appreciation for our mine-workers and for the conditions in which they must earn their daily bread—conditions that are sometimes not all that pleasant, and in the majority of cases not pleasant at all—I think it is important for us to do everything in our power to improve their conditions. I am glad hon members support me in possible efforts towards achieving that goal so that one can thereby create a mechanism for improving these conditions. Mr Chairman, the hon member for Edenvale spoke about a policy on Energy Affairs. If I understood him correctly, he probably also meant that we should provide an energy plan for South Africa and, in order to get to an energy plan, to perhaps submit a White Paper on energy to Parliament. This matter has also been raised by other hon members, amongst others the hon members for Geduld and Brakpan. I accept the fact. I think it is absolutely essential for South Africa to come to light with an energy plan. I think it is absolutely essential, in this energy plan, for us to examine the total energy capabilities and total energy resources of South Africa and to examine, too, the question of self-sufficiency. I think that amongst other things the hon member for Edenvale and the hon member for Brakpan also referred to this. We must also deal with that in this energy plan. Let me tell you that we do have an energy policy committee. This energy policy committee is under the chairmanship of the Director-General of the Department, and if any information is needed about that, I do have it available. After 1 July of this year Dr Louw Alberts, as Director-General, will also be chairman of this committee. This energy policy committee has already been instructed to start work on such an energy strategy for South Africa. I could elaborate on that, but owing to the time factor let me content myself with saying that attention will be given to this aspect.

†However, it cannot be done overnight, because it has to be integrated with the total economic strategy of South Africa. It has also to be integrated with the mineral strategy of South Africa, because energy plays a very important role in our total mineral structure and total economic structure. It will therefore take time for us to prepare it, but we accept the support and this gesture and we shall be working on an energy plan for South Africa in the future. I also want to thank the hon member wholeheartedly for his support of Cahora Bassa.

That hon member also spoke about oil procurement. At this stage, I just want to make a very brief remark in this regard.

*The hon member for Geduld gave us a very clear and chronological exposition of the circumstances under which South Africa has to purchase oil: South Africa has to do so as a country weighed down by boycotts. I think the hon member referred, in particular, to the period 1979-80, which were actually the “high seas days” of oil purchases for South Africa. The hon member for Edenvale told a very interesting story of the routes along which oil sometimes had to travel in those days prior to actually reaching the consumer. Fortunately circumstances have changed, and at this very moment we are in a much more favourable position in regard to oil purchases.

†However, I want to say to the hon member for Edenvale that although we have a very easy position at this stage where we can buy oil for South Africa on real commercial terms...

Does that mean no premiums?

Well, we do pay premiums, but they are very small. It is still a sensitive situation, because the sources from which we buy, do not want us to disclose their names. We really do not have any control over that part of it, so certain aspects of security still have to remain. On the other hand, I must say that I do agree with the hon member that we can make it more open and easy. I think he will also admit that I have already started by talking to the leaders of the various groups and therefore opening more in this respect. I intend to do this more and more in future.

Mr Chairman, if I may ask the hon Minister a question, in view of the fact that he just said that secrecy is perhaps not as important as it was before, why then is there a Bill on the Order Paper which seeks to extend the secrecy provisions in terms of the Petroleum Products Act?

Mr Chairman, I have just said that we cannot abolish the secrecy. When we come to that Bill, I shall explain in great detail as to why we want to extend it. I do not think this is the appropriate time. I shall come back to this matter concerning oil supply at a later stage.

I think one of the points that the hon member also made, was the question about the accountability. As soon as the Advocate-General completes his investigation, as soon as the report is tabled and Parliament has dealt with it, the department intends to have a very close look at the whole matter: SFF, SOF, Con Oil and IDC. I have explained this already in certain detail to the hon member. At that stage, we shall have a new look at it and in this process I think that we shall come to an agreement, because we shall have to discuss it with the Department of Commerce and Industries. We shall also have to discuss it with IDC. We thus intend to do this as soon as the report from the Advocate-General is available.

*Mr Chairman, I do think I have now referred to most of the matters the hon member for Edenvale raised. If there are still some matters outstanding, he can point this out to me and I shall react at a later stage.

I do very briefly want to refer to the transfer of the SFF to the IDC. I think it is important for us to tell one another: This is not a decision that was simply taken overnight; this was a decision which, some considerable time ago, came to the department at the request of Sasol. Because large portions of the SOF’s administration were, to a large extent, dealt with by Sasol on a contractual basis, however, because certain of Sasol’s senior officials had been seconded to the SFF and because, owing to its expertise, Sasol did certain quality evaluations for the SFF, an overnight change-over was simply not possible. There is a very important factor one should also bear in mind: It would have been foolish of us to have put this change-over process into operation whilst there was still a list of current contracts; these are contracts with which the IDC’s administration has in no way been involved. Our timing was therefore such that we decided to carry out this transfer at a stage when it would be necessary to negotiate for the renewal of the majority of these contracts. It should be remembered that at a certain stage Sasol had 50% of the SFF’s shares. The IDC, with its new administrative arm, will therefore be involved in the new negotiations for the extension of existing contracts or the negotiation of new contracts. That is the very reason why it has taken place at this stage. An important point is the following: The basic reason why Sasol asked us to transfer the SFF was because it had basically become a private sector organization.

†Mr Chairman, the Government’s interest in the whole Sasol organization was sold and it became basically a private sector industry. For this reason, it was a bit of an embarrassment for a private sector organization, that has to make use of, say, a government-controlled organization as a broker organization, to buy fuel for him at the prices determined by him, because it also has Natref. I think it is a matter of embarrassment and that is why they also wanted to shed this responsibility.

*On this occasion I want to convey to Sasol, and in particular to all the senior staff members of this department, the greatest appreciation of the Cabinet and the Government, and I also think that of hon members of this Committee, for the absolutely selfless task they have carried out. They have ensured that all of us in South Africa have fuel to keep the South African economy going. Let me convey our very great appreciation to them, and I want it on record that we thank them sincerely for the wonderful job they have done by way of the SFF Association. I should also like to say that at the moment they are really and truly having to endure unfair criticism for the very unenviable task they have had to perform in the interests of this country. I nevertheless want to thank the hon member for Geduld very sincerely for his kind words to me and the department. I also want to thank him for a very succinct and, as far as I am concerned, a very comprehensive review of how the oil position has changed since 1973.

Mr Chairman, in the days ahead I hope to discuss this matter again with the various mineral and energy groups, and I hope to give them a truly detailed summary covering the period from 1973 up to the present day—as I have already done for the Press—of how conditions have changed, what the price situation was, how it varied, how it fluctuated, how this was dealt with, how at a certain stage in 1979 South Africa did not know, from one week to the next, whether it would have enough oil. I still want to discuss this with those groups, and at some future date we shall find an opportunity to do so. Let me again thank the hon member for Geduld for the competent way in which he did this. He also gave a very nice summary of the department’s activities, and for that we also thank him very sincerely. He also referred to the control mechanisms and also to the White Paper on the energy policy. I have already dealt with that; we shall definitely be examining that aspect and, in the months ahead, be coming forward with such a strategy. He also broached another very important point.

†It was also the main topic of the speech of the hon member for South Coast; he was so kind as to tell me beforehand that he was going to talk about the position of the farmer in regard to his electricity supply. Although most of the facts that the hon member for South Coast told us, is indeed correct, I do not think that he had intentions to criticize, but merely to convey the situation as far as the time delays are concerned. This is probably normal. The capital available to Escom to plan and develop these projects, is limited, especially these days.

*Mr Chairman, we requested the commission to freeze its capital expenditure for this year completely, except for that portion in regard to compulsory contracts. The Escom Commission subsequently decided to do so; what they could freeze, they did. Only those aspects with which have to proceed, in terms of certain contracts, are they proceeding with. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to Escom, because under the circumstances it has nevertheless decided not to limit its capital expenditure on distribution networks for the farmers. We very greatly appreciate the enormous amount of, let me say, sympathy that members of the Escom Commission has for the farmers’ cause. A further request was also made to Escom, one which, as a commission, it discussed and considered very thoroughly. It is also a request that was made to us here today by the hon member for Geduld and the hon member for South Coast. It concerns the expansion fees. In this specific connection I should like to make the following statement: South Africa’s worst drought in living memory is still having its oppressive effect on every sphere of our economy. Agriculture is probably the sector in which the drought has had its greatest and most direct impact. As it is, the Government has accommodated the farming community in several spheres, but is also in the process of granting further tangible assistance to the farming community. As an additional aid campaign, the Government has consequently decided to request Escom to consider abolishing the electricity extension fees, payable to Escom over and above the stand tariffs, with retrospective effect from 1 April 1984 to 31 December 1984. This concession, which has been approved by Escom and which has very gratefully been accepted by the Government, applies to all bona fide farmers who are farming in the Republic and in the TBVC countries, who are directly provided with electricity by Escom and who receive accounts from Escom. It is believed that this measure will fundamentally assist farmers and that it will meet them halfway. Let me just say that this measure will benefit the farmers to the tune of several million rand. Escom will be compensated for these temporary losses. The extension fees will be deferred upon receipt of a prescribed written application—I think this is important; hon members must listen carefully—from the farmers. The closing date for the submission of these applications will be 31 December 1984. In other words, we even want to include additions to this network up to and including the end of the year; we shall therefore even be considering applications that arrive as late as the end of 1984. As I have said, new link-ups will also be dealt with in this way. Application forms enabling one to qualify for the concession will be despatched by Escom together with the next series of accounts. It will also be possible to obtain the forms at the department’s office in Pretoria and at Escom’s offices in Johannesburg, Witbank, Durban, Cape Town, Kimberley and East London.

I nevertheless want to thank the hon members for Brakpan and South Coast for their support for this aspect. I am glad that my reaction could be a positive one. I want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for his friendly words. The hon member for Brakpan and I have been great friends for many years now. It was a very sad day for me when the hon member took his seat opposite. Perhaps he will again be sitting here one day; we do not know, but will just have to hope. Let me also thank him for his friendly words—and I think the hon member for Virginia also referred to that—about my reaction to the invitation from the Mine-workers’ Union. There is just one thing I want to add to what the hon member for Virginia said. I want to question whether the Government is suspect in the eyes of the Mineworkers’ Union. I say this with great conviction and authority, because I have had interviews with the executive personnel of the Mineworkers’ Union, interviews which could not initially have been plagued by more difficulties than mine were, because mine began with a confrontation in which it was alleged that I had ignored them because I had not accepted their invitation. From the very first second of our meeting, the situation was one of confrontation, but within two seconds that was defused. Let me state that between my department—and here I am also speaking on behalf of the Government—and the management of the Mine-workers’ Union—and the Director-General of the department can attest to this—there is a very good understanding, despite the fact that we made such a poor start. Let me give the hon member the assurance that in future I shall be doing everything in my power to improve this relationship. If I cannot do so, I shall at least want to maintain it at the present level. I firmly believe that in my efforts to improve our relationship I also have the co-operation of the executive officers of the Mineworkers’ Union, because without their co-operation we cannot effect this improvement. From the little experience I have I believe that I have this co-operation. Let me thank the Mineworkers’ Union very sincerely for this co-operation, the way in which I was received and the relationship that is at present developing between us.

I should also like to link up with the hon member’s statement—I have already done so—that in the case of accidents in mines, on each occasion the department, and the Government as a whole, extends its sympathy to the next-of-kin. I thank the hon member for having done so on behalf of this Committee, too, and in this regard I should like to associate myself with what he said.

The hon member raised a very interesting point about the safety of our mines. He quoted specific statistics to indicate that the safety in our mines was comparable to that in other countries of the world. I agree with him. We must just be very careful, because there is a minor dispute between ourselves and other countries of the world because we do not use the same statistical basis. The statistical basis, however, is not what is important to me at all. What is important to me is the pattern indicated by those statistics. Does that pattern reflect an increasing or decreasing trend? In other words, are our accidents decreasing or are they in the process of increasing? I thank the hon member for his nice words about the security and accident rate in our mines in South Africa being comparable with those in other countries. Having said that, I do also want to say that we should not thereby accept that we are satisfied with the prevailing level. I want to state categorically that we are not satisfied—and that happens to link up with the new Nieuwenhuizen report; I am referring to that portion of the responsibility that will continue to rest with the department—with those statistics and I think that the position should be improved. If the Cabinet and Parliament—and this is a decision that exclusively rests with Parliament—were to approve the establishment of a Select Committee on Mineral Affairs, with a view to the improvement of this situation, this would be of inestimable value to this Parliament, this industry and this country. I have had the privilege of seeing such a select committee in operation abroad. I think it is important for us to have it introduced. It could also furnish contributions as far as open-cast mines are concerned. I can say that at the moment there is an investigation into the environmental conservation aspects involved in open-cast mines. There is a committee looking into that. It is a matter which is being given our attention and which we are dealing with by legal means. There are provisions in the Physical Planning Act laying down certain conditions and regulations in regard to the restoration of the environment in and around open-cast mines. Perhaps it is time for us to give a little more attention to those regulations and conditions, even though they already do enjoy a high priority as far as we are concerned.

The hon member also spoke about Soekor. It is true that Soekor did make certain gas discoveries in some of the boreholes. One is now talking of 1 000-million cubic metres of gas from these boreholes annually. Soekor’s board is at present engaged in working out a strategy in regard to its gas finds. We shall therefore simply wait until the Soekor board approaches us with its strategy. This will form part of our energy policy strategy: What we are going to do with that gas, how we are going to process it, whether it is economically viable or not and whether there is a sufficient volume of gas. At the moment one has the reassuring feeling that the volume of gas might perhaps be enough to make the project economically viable. I do, however, think that the technology relating to what one is to do with it should first be properly investigated.

I also want to thank the hon member for the patience he and his party have displayed in regard to oil matters. I have reacted to the select committee idea, a matter which he also raised. Cahora Bassa does not represent 8% of our peak demand, but rather 8% of our overall installed capability. There is a enormous difference between these two. I just want to put that matter right.

If hon members were now to ask me—and there sits Mr Stofberg of Escom—whether we need Cahora Bassa’s power at this very moment, it would not be honest of me to say yes. We do not need it now, but there is one thing that is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that we are going to need it in future. To build a power station, at present-day costs, to provide that volume of power—I think it is more than 1 400 megawatts—would need an enormous amount of capital, capital we do not need to spend now because the capability is available. We do not have to spend anything, because the lines, the capability and the conversion station are all there. The only thing is that those lines must be protected so that the power can reach us. I think that our having such projects is also of extreme importance to the Southern African economy—and here I am not only speaking of the hydroelectric power generation industry. If I were to predict the future, I would venture to say that this will also be happening with the coal generation of electricity.

It seems to me I should now start finishing off. I shall not comment on the Nieuwenhuizen report at the moment. I want to thank the hon member for South Coast very sincerely for his support. I have replied to most of his arguments. If there is anything I have not reacted to, let him just send me a note and I shall discuss it further at a later stage. I also want to thank the hon member for Virginia for his very clear exposition of the circumstances surrounding the mining industry. There is, however, one very important point that I must emphasize. The hon member referred to the responsibility that the three sectors have in stabilizing the position of, and creating good working conditions in, mineral production in South Africa. There are three bodies that have an equal responsibility, ie the mine-workers themselves, the individuals who have to spend the capital, in other words the employers, and the State. We all have an equal responsibility. In our discussions with the Chamber of Mines and with the Mineworkers’ Union, one of the aspects that could bring about sound relations is the realization that each party has an individual sphere of responsibility. My impression is—and this is something I must say in their favour—that the Chamber of Mines and the mining industry carry out their task with a great sense of responsibility. In saying that, let me add that the mine-workers carry out their task with an equally great, if not greater, sense of responsibility, because they are the people who must extract the wealth from the earth. We, the State, must look after their position and that of the industry as a whole. In saying that we must look after the position of the industry as a whole, I mean that all three of us are equally important partners in this set-up.

On this note I must now conclude and give other hon members a chance to do a bit of talking.

Mr Chairman, today the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs generated so much energy here that one need only look at the lights in this Committee Room to see how brightly they are shining now. They are so bright that I even had to remove my glasses, because he made one’s eyes water with all the information he furnished. He threw light on the darkest mine tunnels and also on our roads.

I wonder where the Opposition would have been if it had not been for this National Party Government. They would have had to travel by ox-wagon and donkey-cart if they had not had this brain power of the hon the Minister, the hon the Prime Minister and the National Government during the energy crisis. This is what the National Party Government has achieved, and it is no use being critical about matters now.

I do want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister on his new position. He is an engineer and a man who can lead us to great heights. I also want to thank Mr Sarel du Plessis, the Director-General, who will be taking leave of us, most sincerely for the time he was with us. We learnt a great deal from him. We are now getting Dr Louw Alberts, who we know is a man with deep Christian convictions who can also adopt a very firm standpoint. We also want to welcome him here.

I am sorry that my friend, the hon member for Brakpan, whom I helped to become the member for Brakpan, is not here now.

We are now on our way to helping you out of Rosettenville.

Just wait a moment. Let us come to a point now. It seems to me that the HNP has taken these fellows from the CP in tow. They were at Nkomati. I was also there and at that stage they applauded everything enthusiastically, etc. Then the HNP began to negotiate with them and now they come along with their arguments about Cahora Bassa. I want to ask them whether they are making the interests of South Africa subservient to their own political perspective. After all there were negotiations on this matter with recognized Governments, viz Portugal, Mozambique and the RSA.

In Escom’s annual report reference is made to high interest rates, high capital costs and more expensive power. In this connection I quote:

What is going to happen here is that we shall not eventually come out on top because, as the hon the Minister said, and also according to this report, the drought has added R100 million to Escom’s costs. A loss of 3 000 megawatts was suffered and three-fifths of that loss was caused by the drought and two-fifths by the unreliability of the Cahora Bassa Scheme. Over and above the economic factors, political stability can also be achieved, whether it is in regard to Ruacana or Cahora Bassa. These political factors are eventually going to lead to our being able to bring about stability in South West Africa, Angola, Mozambique and the whole of Southern Africa.

At the moment Cahora Bassa is one of the largest hydroelectric schemes in the world. In its first development phase the dam has five inlet tunnels through which a mass of water is transported to five turbines. To house these massive machines an underground chamber larger than St Paul’s Cathedral in London had to be blown out of solid rock. The electric alternating current flows from the underground power-station to a surface converting station, where it is converted into direct current before it is conveyed to South Africa.

The double transmission line supported by 6 400 pylons, covers a distance of approximately 1 400 km to the Apollo power station in Verwoerdburg, in your constituency, Mr Chairman, where the direct current is reconverted into alternating current. Now you can see why the lights are shining so brightly, even today with you there in the Chairman’s Chair.

With the establishment of the Victoria Falls Power Company in 1906 it was already thought that we should harness the Zambezi. I am not even referring to Ruacana and the Kunene now. It was already felt that the Zambezi could eventually, through the Victoria Falls Power Company, provide power for the gold mines on the Witwatersrand.

At that stage however it was cheaper to make use of our own coal-fired power-stations. We continued in this way and in 1966, when the potential in Southern Africa was discussed, the possibility of an energy crisis was mentioned. We then realized that this would mean not only the generation of hydroelectric power, but also stability to the mutual benefit of everyone in South Africa. This regional co-operation is going to help ensure a reliable supply.

In his statement the hon member for Brakpan said that there would now be mutual protection. We do not need anyone to protect us. The troops in Mozambique will see to it that those power-lines are protected.

South Africa, which constitutes less than 4% of the continent of Africa, and has just over 5% of Africa’s population, generates approximately 60% of all the power consumed in Africa. I think this is an achievement and I think that we should congratulate Mr Stofberg, Dr Smit and all the people at Escom on this achievement.

Nowadays electricity has become a facet of economic development. Today Escom is responsible for more than 93% of the electricity consumed in South Africa. This is another achievement. One thinks of the industries, the mines and the municipalities which each receive approximately one third of Escom’s power.

I also want to refer to Ruacana. This is a vast area in South West Africa. In 1976 it became clear that owing to lengthy negotiations with the Portuguese Ruacana would not be completed in time and an alternative source of power in the form of a diesel power-station was erected in South West Africa. But in 1980 permission was given for it to be linked to the RSA network and to supply 240 megawatts. Today Ruacana has both a hydroelectric power-station and a pump-station for irrigation, which is extremely important in this dry area.

As far as the future electrical power situation in Mozambique is concerned, South Africa will pay considerably less than the average unit costs of power which Escom’s coal-fired power-stations can generate. This is what is important to us. It has been calculated that South Africa will only pay about R8 million a month for the power if the full quota of electricity is supplied. Mozambique will receive 28,57% of the power. Portugal is now able to finance the project. Finance was their problem. Mozambique will now also receive an income it did not have and we shall be able to save our own resources.

The justification for this giant project is provided by the willingness of the RSA to purchase virtually all the power from the first development phase. We are extremely proud of this ability.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister most sincerely for not taking a back seat in these negotiations either. I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for travelling to Portugal and Mozambique with great enthusiasm and dedication to make all these things possible.

This year Escom is 60 years old, an achievement we in the Republic are all very grateful for. This year the SA Transport Services only needs 4%, but that does not mean to say that it will not be expanded further in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to the hon member for Rosettenville. It was also interesting in this debate so far to note that there seems to be a consensus about the need for a comprehensive energy plan, the need for a Select Committee on Energy Matters and the need for more openness. We shall see whether the Government is going to deliver as far as that last intention is concerned. I also note that there is an intention to thoroughly investigate the restructuring of the oil procurement business, to which presumably the select committee would be in a good position to contribute.

One thing that was a bit disappointing, however, was that the hon the Minister in a comprehensive speech was very silent on the subject of the oil matters which have been raised in recent times. I feel that I would like to raise some issues which arise out of this.

Two years ago in this same debate I did raise this matter very briefly and said that the Minister should tell the public what element of the fuel price had to be apportioned to a premium payable for cloak-and-dagger type of procurement practices which served only to enrich certain unknown middlemen. At that stage there was no documentary evidence available, as we know, but there was a rumour even at that time that South Africa was paying more than it should have been paying to procure oil.

As hon members know, allegations have now reached us which to a large extent revolved around the principle of payments for oil in excess of contract prices—that is in addition to the premium which might have been paid over market prices. In fairness to the present hon the Minister and to his immediate predecessor I think I should mention that the alleged evidence which we have to hand relates to the periods of office of the hon Minister Heunis and the hon Minister De Klerk. Without in any way wishing to reveal details of the personalities and the procurement of oil during those periods, the point on which I wish to focus is the question as to whether or not we have paid more for oil than we should have paid during those times. This is a matter of the management of public funds rather than the procurement of oil. I wish to focus on that aspect and ask the hon the Minister whether he can confirm that at any time he has been aware of a case where South Africa has paid in excess of the contract price.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: One itches to reply to the hon member but is it in order to discuss this matter in detail? Is it not sub judice?

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?

Order! It is not necessary. The rules stipulate that it is sub judice only when judgement by a court of law is pending: Furthermore the Advocate-General Act specifically provides that when a case is being investigated by the Advocate-General a discussion in the House of Assembly is not prohibited. Therefore the hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Obviously there is not going to be an immediate response from the hon the Minister, but I am going to assume that he has seen the file that we have handed to the hon the Prime Minister, which on the face of it reveals a number of incidents.

I make my own decisions on this.

Yes, but I presume that the hon the Minister has seen the file. There is evidence that there have been overpayments against contracts and once they have been tested we will see whether this is correct. However, certain policy issues arise. How does it come about that a contract price can be exceeded? What factors can give rise to such a situation? This is an important question, because we are reliably informed by people who understand the world oil trading business that one of the basic assumptions of oil procurement is that a contract price is a sacrosanct thing. If overpayments have happened there is going to have to be an explanation to the public.

The second important point which arises directly from this matter is the question of who must sign the approval when a price is paid in excess of a contract price. I presume this is a matter of departmental policy and we should like to know who must sign to authorize a payment in excess of the contract price. Is it an official of the SFF, the department or is it the Minister?

Do you want us to react to your speculation?

No, this is not speculation. Is it a matter of departmental policy as to who signs when there is an increase of a contract? This must be a matter of policy and we should like to know the answer.

There is a third question I should like to ask. In granting such authorization for overpayment is it necessary to furnish proper documentary evidence and motivation to the Minister, and if so, what is the nature of the motivation?

The fourth question—and this is a supremely critical element—is the question of what happens to the actual premium that is paid in excess of the contract price. There are only four possibilities. Either the country or supplier of origin, the broker or other unnamed middlemen have received more than they should have, in which case it would certainly be a case for the Advocate-General—and we know he is looking at that—or—this is a possibility which we must take note of—it has somehow been siphoned off to be used for some undisclosed purpose by the Government or a Government agency. This has to be mentioned and borne in mind because the Information scandal is recent in our minds. South Africa was shocked to find that its patriotism and its willingness to fund the defence effort was exploited by funds having been siphoned off for dubious secret projects. These are possibilities that will have to be fully explored.

It is a lot of nonsense. You are playing politics.

That hon member may pooh pooh, but there is a lot of money involved here, public funds which have to be accounted for and which have to be properly managed.

Why do you not wait for the Advocate-General?

The questions I have raised are not all questions which fall within the scope of the Advocate-General. They are matters of policy, the operating of this department and the management of public funds. We need to have answers to those matters of policy. In fact, it supports the appeal my hon leader has made for a select committee to look into these matters. It is not necessarily only a question of some people putting money in their pockets; it could be other factors, some of which I have mentioned here.

Why do you not give us the facts?

There is a file full of facts. That hon the Minister must have seen it. We are waiting for it to be tested. Quite honestly, some weeks after this has been handed to the Government it would not be too difficult for the hon the Minister to get up and say that there are certain instances in which they can already see that there has been an overpayment and that they are now investigating the reasons. The fact of an overpayment could have been tested easily and could still be tested in this debate. Any attempt at a cover-up of this is not going to be successful. The dictum of “follow the money” in these cases, as was revealed in the Watergate scandal, will be followed here. We shall follow that trail wherever it may lead.

The second major issue which I would like to raise with the hon the Minister in this debate is the price which South Africa is paying for the crude oil landed in this country at the moment. As some members will be aware I put a question on the Order Paper on this subject. The reply was that we are paying US dollars 30,18 cif landed in the Republic. The major question that arises in this connection is whether this dollar price per barrel of crude is in fact the best price which South Africa can obtain on the present world market. This is a very important figure. Every dollar difference will affect the petrol price at the pump and I need hardly mention the inflationary ramifications of that. It is with great concern that I was advised recently by a flesh and blood person... [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is clear that the hon member for Constantia is still a novice in politics. It is such a pity to hear him spoil the neat contribution the hon member for Edenvale made on the Opposition side by talking about things he knows nothing about. We would just like to ask him to disclose his sources to us. If they have all the gossip, why do they not tell us this piece of gossip. The hon the Prime Minister said quite clearly in the House that this matter would now be handled by the Advocate-General and if he were to find that there were irregularities, it would be referred back to this Parliament. It seems to me as if the hon member for Constantia does not listen to these things. He does not understand them and he does not realize that he will then have ample opportunity to discuss the matter. Now he comes and wastes this committee’s time. I am not going to devote any more of my speech to this hon member, who is still a novice in politics. I have more important matters to deal with and I think the Committee has more important matters to deal with.

It is the declared policy not only of the Government, but also of the Opposition parties and the municipalities throughout the country to try to combat inflation. All of us are concerned about the high inflation rate and I think energy plays a very important role here. It is not only South Africa’s politicians who have committed themselves to this objective. One is grateful for this. But, throughout the country the private sector and the public sector have also committed themselves to this objective. These groups include the manufacturing industry, the mining industry, the Post Office, the SA Transport Service and also Escom. The combating of higher energy prices and tariffs and the effective use of this particular source of energy is going to make a major contribution to the question of whether we shall be successful in combating inflation in South Africa. To attain this objective South Africa relies in the first place on its engineers and in the second place on John Citizen. South Africa’s architects and engineers are the designers and planners of the economic structures of this country. It is they who design buildings, transport systems, domestic appliances, street lighting, factories, machines and distribution networks. The Committee will agree with me that when it comes to the consumption of electricity and the effective utilization of this source of energy it is in fact the engineers and the architects in particular who are bringing about large savings.

Since the Government made an appeal to the nation to become energy conscious, certain Government departments have already done their share in this regard. I want to refer to the SA Transport Services. When it established its monitoring terminal at Saldanha for example—and it may be interesting for the Minister to hear this—it succeeded in achieving a saving of R8 million within a space of 40 months on the transport costs between Sishen and Saldanha. This is a commendable achievement. What is of importance to Escom and the country if one considers this example is that South Africa’s transport services have succeeded not only in keeping their peak demand within limits—something about which the hon member for Brakpan became so excited—but in reducing it by approximately 42% on that section. In a developing country like South Africa it is important to keep capital investment as low as possible, particularly when money is very expensive.

In this regard I want to associate myself with what the hon the Minister said. When engineers can reduce the power demand of bulk consumers, it means a saving on the erection of new power-tations. That is why I am mentioning this example in the hope that the media will bring it to the attention of bulk consumers in order to encourage them to produce similar achievements.

This brings me to John Citizen. I am aware of the fact that the hon the Minister recently awarded a prize to the designers of a building for producing the most energy-efficient design. On that occasion the hon the Minister pointed out that 20% of the total power generated in the RSA is used in buildings. The Minister said that power used in buildings cost the country approximately R2 000 million. This is equivalent to approximately 70% of our defence budget. This is where John Citizen, Escom and the local authorities can play a greater role and must help to combat inflation. I feel that the power generator, Escom, must draw the attention of the power distributor, the local authorities, to areas where the power consumer wastes that power and uses it ineffectively. This must be an on-going educational task to which wide-spread publicity is given. I think that the select committee could possibly also give attention to this, but I would like to see Escom and this department begin to give attention to this now.

I want to mention an example of how we waste power in this Parliamentary building. During the warm summer months windows are frequently opened in this building to let in cool air while the air-conditioning system is on. This is comparable to a motor-car standing all day long idling without moving an inch.

In my opinion our building regulations should provide that permanent equipment installed in buildings, for example water heaters, should comply with the energy-saving specifications of the SABS. I agree with the hon the Minister that one of the aspects in the training of architects and engineers should be energy effective design. City councils must see to it that their residents know how to use energy economically.

We are entering a new era in South Africa, an era in which a population group which has never used electrical appliances will be using them in future. I predict that there will be a boom in the sale of such appliances. Nowadays the modem home uses ten times as many domestic electrical appliances as it did 30 years ago. If we in this country only have water supplies to accommodate 80 million people, we must begin at an early stage to design and re-design buildings and all the systems I have mentioned in such a way that we shall consume the minimum amount of power when our country reaches that population saturation point.

I have a few questions with reference to Escom’s report. In the first place, the report mentions the fact that negotiations are under way with certain of the municipalities in the Peninsula with a view to these municipalities taking over approximately 75 000 of Escom’s consumers. This means the creation of electricity departments in all these municipalities and additional costs for home-owners in Peninsula municipalities. This is something I should like to spare them. In view of legislation we passed recently, particularly the legislation in connection with co-ordinating councils which are to be established and which in my opinion will lead to the rationalization of services in metropolitan areas, I find this step strange. I should like to hear the reason for this.

I am hurrying to finish my speech but before I do so I should like to make a suggestion to the hon the Minister. Because the hon the Minister also holds the portfolio of Mineral Affairs, this is a matter I should like to suggest to him. It still has to do with the combating of inflation and with co-operation between the metropolitan authorities on the Witwatersrand and the owners of the mine dumps in that region. In view of the fact that in future this metropolis is going to experience major garbage disposal problems because from Springs to the other side of Johannesburg there is a single colossal city where there is no longer much land available for rubbish dumps... [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the onset of the fuel crisis the Government introduced certain measures to conserve fuel. These were restricted fuel-selling hours; speed limits; and restrictions on motor, power boat and aeronautical sport. I appeal to the Government to scrap all of these measures at this stage because they help very little if any to conserve fuel, it adds an administrative burden on the department and the private sector, is only of nuisance value to the public and in the case of the last measure it is just blatantly discriminatory. I substantiate my plea with a short reference to each. Fuel-selling hours and the R5 after hours levy do not eliminate unnecessary journeys. Long distance journeys are either planned, so people are tanked up or it is an emergency in which case one can get a permit or pay the R5 levy. Those foot-loose types on the Reef who decide on the spur of the moment to set off to Durban or Sun City, I am sure, would not have a mere R5 levy spoil their fun. Then there are those enterprising types who are in good positions with service stations which, with the help of the Government, rip off the public and make thousands of rands per month on this levy. Then also there are in each town a few “honest” entrepreneurs who incriminate themselves by not charging the levy in order to boost sales. In doing so they invite people to make long detours to avoid paying the levy. The only trips which may be prevented are those of the forgetfuls. This type of person first forgets to buy cigarettes, then milk and then chocolates and then finally has to cancel his very last trip to change the video because he forgot to fill up and he cannot pay the levy because he forgot to draw money in the first place. Even that last trip saved is in fact cancelled out by those very diligents who set out every afternoon at the strike of 5.45 to fill up in case they have to make an unexpected journey. I therefore plead to the hon the Minister to abolish the levy and the restrictions on selling hours. Secondly, speed limits, if adhered to, would certainly reduce consumption. There is no argument about that. However, it is also a fact that the vast majority of motorists do not adhere to the speed limits and this, I suggest, is due firstly to the fact that the 100 kph speed limit seems to be just below the comfortable cruising speed of modem motorcars. One can stay within the 120 speed limit without watching your speedometer constantly, but it seems to be very difficult to remain just below 100. The other reason is very sporadic law enforcement perhaps because traffic officers are reluctant to conduct more regular speed traps since those outrageously high fines make them the enemies, not the friends of the travelling public. I therefore appeal for the speed limit to be raised to 120 kph where the roads were designed for that. The third set of measures—the hon the Minister may not be aware of this—are the measures controlling motor, power boat and aeronautical sport. Participants in these sports have to apply before they can conduct such events. They only use but a fraction of the fuel consumed by spectators. On any good Saturday in the rugby season I suggest that a hundred thousand people come out to watch rugby and if you add to this tennis, soccer, boxing and other spectator sports, I suggest that perhaps no less than a hundred thousand motor-cars set off on a 10 km trip each, making a total of 1 million kilometres that people go to watch the sport of their choice. Those few participants in aeronautical, motor or power boat sports in competitive events add but a drop in the bucket to the total amount of fuel consumed by people pursuing some form of recreation or another. In the old car club which I belong to, we must get special permission to go on a Sunday picnic run or a small rally. That is perhaps about 20 people using about 15 litres of petrol each. Yet thousands of picnickers or boardsailers or water-skiers or anybody else can travel in their modern motorcars for any distance without any restriction whatsoever. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to scrap every one of these fuel conservation measures.

In the one minute to my disposal I should like to refer the hon the Minister to a matter I have raised in the past when he was not the Minister of this department. In the report of the Chief Director of the energy branch contained in the annual report of the department, we see that coal meets approximately 85 per cent of South Africa’s energy needs. One other very interesting fact which is not represented in the report at all is that perhaps 50 per cent of the people of South Africa are dependent on wood for their energy needs. Those are, obviously, the people in the rural areas in the Third World part of South Africa. Nowhere in this document is any reference made to it. The day before yesterday we had a very good speech on the deforestation of the platteland and I suggest that the hon the Minister make some serious investigations in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to agree with everything that the hon member for Greytown had to say, but he did say certain things which sounded reasonably positive for a change, which I am, in fact, quite gratified about. The hon member is sometimes inclined to say somewhat irresponsible things, particularly when he enters the political field. Apparently he does a great deal better when discussing these practical matters. I wish to associate myself with what other hon members have said in connection with the Director-General and others to whom they referred and convey my appreciation to them and to the hon the Minister, who now has to perform this important task. The hon member for Brakpan again referred to the Cahora Bassa scheme and mentioned certain things in this regard. One should probably see this in the light of the recent engagement between the CP and the HNP. I do not know whether the wedding will ever take place because there are two would-be bridegrooms, viz Jaap and Andries. [Interjections.] The hon member also spoke about the speed limit and said that he was not in favour of it. He did not motivate that. I wish to repeat my request to the hon the Minister that this matter be considered. A great deal has already been said about this and I am not going to elaborate on it, nor on the issue of the R5 service levy. I must also mention that the Beisa uranium mine is going to close. We are very sorry to hear this. We understand the circumstances, but are nevertheless grateful that the people working on this mine will be placed elsewhere by the mining group in question. Therefore they will not be unemployed.

I want to refer briefly to labour affairs in the mining industry. I also want to refer to mine safety, if I am able to do so in the short time at my disposal. I regard this as a matter of great importance, particularly since it affects the welfare of the workers in the industry. It is of considerable importance to the hon the Minister and his department as well. This is a matter of current importance. I contend that it has become necessary for consideration to be given to transferring all labour matters relating to the mining industry, at present the responsibility of the hon the Minister’s department, to the Department of Manpower. Any matter must, of course, first be investigated. I think it is right and necessary that this matter be considered in the light of the benefits it may entail. The interests of the workers must be furthered at all times, wherever possible. The hon the Minister of Manpower and his department are responsible for all labour matters. Accordingly they are geared for this and equipped to deal with this matter efficiently. Such a transfer has now taken place in respect of occupational diseases. I do not wish to elaborate on this now, but occupational diseases have been transferred to the Department of Health and Welfare, where they belong. I am convinced that it will be in the best interests of all involved if the labour matters of the mining industry which are at present still the responsibility of the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs are transferred to the Minister of Manpower. It is only logical that this be done. The present dispensation arose due to historical reasons. Initially the mining industry was virtually the only industry in the country employing a substantial number of workers. Circumstances have changed considerably, however, and the interests of the workers in the mining industry can be best served if their affairs, like those of all other workers in the country, are dealt with by the department established for that purpose, viz Manpower. This will entail the additional benefit that the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and his department can give their full attention to the key services for which they are responsible. This morning we heard about several matters that were discussed here. We heard about the importance of these matters for South Africa and its economy, and about matters which really require constant attention. Accordingly the hon the Minister and his department will be able to give their full attention to the basic task of the department. I trust that the hon the Minister and his colleague in the Department of Manpower will consult with one another in this regard.

Earlier in this debate reference was made to mining accidents and the tragedy in this connection. One cannot help being moved by every case in which a person loses his life due to a mining accident. To enable the Government Mining Engineer to carry out his task, as defined in the Mines and Works Act, on a broader basis and with a view to greater assurance in regard to safety in mines, his office has been restructured and expanded. It is to be welcomed that these steps are being taken and the necessary funds provided. This is also contained in the relevant report. Although all the bodies involved try to make mines as safe as possible and protect workers against accidents, harmful substances and gases, we must continue to strive to combat the loss of life and prevent the occurrence of occupational diseases as far as possible. Therefore workers must be exposed to the minimum of risk. Let me briefly quote the following statistics: In 1983, 604 deaths occurred in the gold mines and 831 in all mines. The nature of the accidents was as follows: If the causes of accidents are analysed, it is evident that 325 people lost their lives due to falls of ground in gold mines. Of these, 142 were due to rock-bursts and 183 due to other falls, while 76 deaths were caused by trucks and tramways. However, a new code of practice has been drawn up by the subcommittee of the mine safety group of the Chamber of Mines in order to deal with this matter. We hope that they will achieve success in this regard. Moreover, intensive research is being carried out. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to link up with a subject touched on by previous speakers, inter alia the hon members for Edenvale and Geduld. I refer to energy planning.

To begin with, I want to reply to the allegations made by the hon member for Constantia. If he has information about oil sales that were turned down although offered more cheaply, he must please approach the Advocate General and make his information known there. It is beneath the office of Member of Parliament to concern himself with gossip. He must go and submit the information to the Advocate General, who is an extension of Parliament. That is how it should be done.

I should like to make the statement that we in South Africa have a tradition of pioneering thought and balanced planning in the field of energy. We have consistently been in the forefront as regards the implementation of the most modern technology available. To illustrate my statement I want to quote a few points in connection with the supply of electricity in South Africa. I want to go back to 1 September 1882, when the street lights were turned on in Kimberley, the diamond city. That was only three years after the discovery of the incandescent lamp by Edison. That was a notable achievement. It was about three years after electric lights had been switched on in Broadway in New York.

Initially electricity was generated by way of steam engines in Kimberley and on the Rand, at the gold mines. The growing demand soon gave rise to the concept of “power stations”. It is interesting to note that a century ago the concept of a power station was a totally new idea. In 1896 a company, The Rand Central Electric Company, was established on the Rand with this in mind and in 1897 the General Electric Power Company was also founded on the Rand. Initially electrical power was very expensive and was only used for the illumination of work areas and the propulsion of equipment.

After the Anglo-Boer War it soon became clear that sufficient cheap power was a prerequisite for the development of our gold-mining industry. It was the idea of a central electricity supply undertaking which led to the founding of the first large company, Victoria Falls Power Company in Southern Rhodesia in 1906. It had an initial history of abortive efforts to generate hydroelectric power in the Zambezi River, but is was not long before the focus of activities of the VFP shifted to the Witwatersrand. By 1915 the VFP had established four power stations in the Transvaal with a total generating capacity of 160 megawatts. These power stations were built at Brakpan, Zimmerpan, Roscherville and Vereeniging.

On 28 May 1910, three days before Union, the Power Act of 1910 came into effect in Transvaal. In terms of that Act the Transvaal Government accepted a very important principle, viz that power supply should be a public service.

I want to refer further to a visit to South Africa by Charles Mertz, a founding partner of the well-known firm Mertz and McLellan in 1919. He submitted a report to the Smuts Government in which he stated that there were two important prerequisites for industrial development in South Africa. The one was an effective transport network, and the second, a clear and definitive policy with regard to the supply of electrical power in South Africa. The Mertz report was very well received by the Smuts Government and led to the legislation in 1922 for the establishment of Escom. We all know that Escom celebrated its 50th birthday last year. Escom was established in 1923.

It is interesting to note that the standard alternating current frequency that we use in South Africa, viz 50 Hertz, was introduced in 1919, on the recommendation of Charles Mertz.

I think that today, when we look back on the pioneering work done in the field of electricity over more than a century in South Africa, we can be very grateful. History shows clearly that from the outset there was understanding for the need for two important things. The one was standardization and the other was a clear electricity policy. I contend that our country is benefiting enormously from the results of that pioneering work. I have gone into the history of electricity supply in South Africa. We had outstanding development and planning in this connection. Sound thinking went into this.

Whereas in recent times there has been a great deal of criticism of Escom, I should like to mention two points that should not be overlooked. One is that we in South Africa have never had an electricity shortage. The other is that there are only four countries throughout the world in which electrical power is provided more cheaply than in South Africa. They are Iceland, Turkey, Norway and Canada. In these countries electricity is for the most part generated by way of hydroelectrical schemes.

I now wish to link up with what the hon member for Geduld, the hon member for Edenvale and the hon the Minister said earlier in this debate. I want to make the point, and just motivate briefly, that we have reached the state at which it has become essential for the Government to come up with a comprehensive energy policy document. Just as in 1919 the Mertz report stated clearly what had to be done to provide power in South Africa, we must now come forward with a comprehensive document concerning an energy policy.

I want to ask that as far as is practicable, the hon the Minister should see to it that there is co-operation with other countries in Southern Africa so that energy objectives can be formulated for the entire subcontinent which all the countries in Southern Africa can co-operate in pursuing. I think that this is imperative.

I want to refer to coal-fired power generation and say that in the post-war period in particular, Escom grew extremely rapidly. Between 1955 and 1980 there was only one civilized country, viz Japan, in which the percentage increase of electrical power generating capacity was more rapid than in South Africa. To provide a further illustration of the rapid tempo at which Escom had to expand, I could point out that in terms of generating capacity, in 1981 more generators were ordered in South Africa than in the USA. The rapid rate of expansion of Escom resulted in Escom beginning to compete with the Government on the capital market on a large scale. We know—and this is spelt out in the annual report of Escom—what the effect of an increase in the growth rate has been on Escom’s capital requirements. I wish to make the point that a comprehensive policy document should also specify parameters within which Escom is to expand. It is not right that Escom should make projections of, say, 7% or 7,5% in relative isolation, and later be accused of needing more capital than is needed for the country’s requirements. The Government must provide the parameters within which Escom must plan and Escom must then accept them and expand in accordance with that.

The Commission of Enquiry into the Supply of Electrical Power will submit its report later in the year. This report will be a cornerstone in the formulation of a White Paper on energy policy.

As far as hydroelectric power is concerned, I want to say that it is still the cheapest form of power. Apart from Cahora Bassa and Ruacana there are, in my opinion, further possibilities in our national states. I should also like the White Paper to express an opinion on the generation of hydroelectric power in Southern Africa.

As far as nuclear energy is concerned, I want to say that we all know that this is the only known long-term source of electrical energy. Over the past 15 years the Government has taken important decisions from time to time with regard to its nuclear energy programme. However we know that international and internal conditions over the past 15 years have changed a great deal. I should like to make a plea for the Energy Policy Committee to have as much access as possible to the details of the nuclear energy programme so that we can establish a fully integrated energy policy. We must not have a policy for all other energy aspects on the one hand and a policy with regard to nuclear energy on the other. I want the parameters for nuclear energy to become available to the Nuclear Energy Planning Committee. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister for the very praiseworthy and sympathetic way in which he reacted to the matter raised by my colleague, the hon member for Brakpan, and other Opposition spokesmen. When I look at the hon the Minister, whom I have known for many years, giving his reply, I am reminded of the saying in Proverbs: “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” I want to say to the hon the Minister that we are grateful for the friendly way in which he deals with us as members of the Opposition parties, not only here, but also in the lobby of Parliament and elsewhere. We also greatly appreciate the fact that after an initial clash with the Mineworkers’ Union he made friends with that union. I know that the nature of his personality is such that he will establish a good understanding between himself and the Mineworkers’ Union. The Conservative Party will support him on this road. I have before me a small printed document which states: “It takes time to be friendly; it is the road to happiness”. I want to say to that friendly hon Minister that we hope that his work in handling this portfolio will give rise to good relations and I should also like to say to his colleagues that they may as well follow his example. He is friendly to us even though we differ with him.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister on behalf of the farmers. Most of the farmers of South Africa are supporters of the Conservative Party, and we want to thank him and Escom for this fine concession to us by Escom. We shall thank the hon the Minister for the assistance he has given us with a sound CP victory in Potgietersrus. I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for the writing-off of this amount because this is indeed a very considerable concession on his part. My part of the world is an extensive agricultural region. The mines there have Escom power, but the rest of the region does not really make use of Escom power because it is too expensive. It is largely due to Escom power that this region was able to develop. We should like the extensive agricultural areas bordering on Botswana and Bophuthatswana to stay populated. We should like the farmers to stay on the farms in that region, but at this stage Escom power is simply too expensive for a farmer in that part of the world. For example, we have the situation that farmers in the region between Kuruman and Van Zylsrust requested an investigation into the possibility of an Escom power supply. It was found that Escom power would be too expensive for those people and I now want to ask the hon the Minister and Escom whether they could not devise plans to make Escom power available to farmers more cheaply in this extensive agricultural area because it could mean that we would keep those farmers on our farms. Once again I wish to thank the hon the Minister for the concession to this region.

The mining industry is one of the biggest employers in South Africa. The hon member for Virginia quoted figures to indicate how big it really is. I should like to point out today that this is an industry which looks after the welfare and the needs of the people in its employment. The industry does a great deal in regard to accommodation and sport. I should like to pay tribute to the mines in the Northern Cape which have not only brought development and prosperity to that region, but have also done a great deal for the workers, not only the White workers in that part of the world but also the Black workers, with regard to accommodation and sport facilities. In some cases I differed with certain mines and also with Iscor—I did so as a Nationalist—when they built R10 million of accommodation 60 km from the border of a homeland. At that time I was still a member of the National Party and even then I differed drastically with them in that regard. I think it was wrong. That accommodation should have been built within the homeland in question and these people could have commuted to and from their employment.

60 km away?

Yes, from 60 km away. There are people in the Cape Peninsula who travel to work over a far greater distance than 60 km. [Interjections.] Apparently the hon member for Stellenbosch does not agree with me. Hon members who represent constituencies in the Western Cape apparently do not care because they are now, without saying a word, permitting a city to be built on the Cape Flats that will accommodate 250 000 Black people. I do not take it amiss of that hon member, but the Nationalists in the Kuruman constituency would like these people to be settled within their homeland. However, I do not wish to allow myself to be sidetracked. We want to thank the mining industry for having provided adequate facilities for their employees. I also wish to refer to the sports facilities provided at Sishen, where coaching facilities are provided for Black people. Among the ten athletes that the South African Athletics Union is now sending to the Olympic Games, who will not have the opportunity to participate in the Olympic Games, are three Black athletes from Sishen. Mr Leon Vogel, their coach, is also from those parts. They are Tswana athletes who, due to the facilities and the opportunities created for them here, have done so well that they are now athletes of international calibre. Hon members on that side of the House will probably create a song and dance again when I say that if the Conservative Party were in power, those athletes would not have gone to the Olympic Games as members of the South African team, but under the banner of Bophuthatswana, their fatherland in which they reside and from which they come to work in South Africa on a contract basis.

What has that to do with mining?

I am now discussing the athletes who have been given the opportunity to do well by the mining industry. We want to congratulate the mining industry on these wonderful... these wonderful...

Girls?

I cannot take it amiss of the hon member for Virginia for making that remark, because he only thinks about one thing. That is all he thinks about. These people’s talents can be developed because the mining industry provides the facilities for them. Now we have a problem. The National Party has accepted multiracial sports clubs. The mines in the Northern Cape and elsewhere in the country have provided separate facilities for the various population groups, but since local authorities in the Cape are now even being told to share facilities, the mine-workers in my part of the world fear that some of these mining companies, these big money magnates, may come and say: Look, we must save a little money and therefore we cannot provide separate sports facilities for the Whites and the Blacks. That is what our people fear. Now I am asking the hon the Minister to insist that the people of the mining industry make separate facilities available for the Black people and the White people. Does the hon member for Virginia agree with me?

If it is practicable, yes.

The hon member says: “If it is practicable, yes”, but I ask him whether he agrees with me in principle.

Surely I said if it was practicable.

That is how the hon member for Virginia runs away from what he believed in in the past.

I said that the mining industry is one of the biggest employers in South Africa. According to the department’s report that labour force has dropped by 6% this year. Many people who worked in the mining industry have left the industry due to economic circumstances and are now unemployed. The other day I heard on the radio that at present there are one million Black people from neighbouring states working in the Republic of South Africa. Most of them are in the mining industry. These people do not come from the TBVC countries. I want to appeal to the mining industry today to give preference to the Black people of South Africa and the TBVC countries. I also wish to appeal to the mining industry not only to go and recruit labour in our neighbouring states or in the national states, but to come and recruit labour here in Crossroads as well. The mining industry can go and recruit workers in Prieska, in Beaufort West and in other rural towns where there are thousands of unemployed people in Black residential areas.

Are those the people from the farms?

The people on the farms have employment, food and accommodation. I only ask that the mining industry go and recruit workers in these township areas.

Mr Chairman, I always find it interesting to listen to the hon member for Kuruman. He has such a lot to say that in replying to him one does not know where to start. He began by lodging a plea for electrical power for certain areas, and I wondered whether he was not perhaps advocating electrical power for the new White homelands his party wants to create. Then he dealt with Potgietersrus, and I would very much like to know whether “Potties” is going to fall within the White homeland or whether it is going to fall outside that homeland, because he did not tell us.

I should like to come to the question of Black labour to which the hon also referred. I think that in this connection I can briefly cross swords with him. He said that he objected to R10 million having been spent on accommodation for Blacks within the RSA and that that accommodation should rather have been erected within the relevant homeland. I wonder whether the hon member has ever sat down and thought about what it would be like for those people to have to travel 60 km each day to and from their place of work? Has the hon member ever thought of the number of Blacks employed by any one mine? An endless stream of buses would be necessary to transport such a large group of people from their place of residence to their place of work, not to mention the amount of time that would be wasted.

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

No, the hon member has already had his turn. He must now wait a while. I do not have the time to answer questions now. I have only eight minutes at my disposal.

The hon member for Kuruman also referred to sports stadiums and separate facilities for Whites and Blacks, saying that mining magnates are now apparently going to ask those people... [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to give the hon member for Stilfontein an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I hope the hon member for Kuruman was listening. The hon member for Kuruman said that the mining magnates were now apparently now going to try to save money by no longer making separate sports facilities available for their employees. I do not know how many mines there are in the Kuruman area. Not many, in any event. He should come and have a brief look at what things are like in Stilfontein.

There are many more than there are in Stilfontein.

More meercat burrows.

There may be more meercat burrows in Kuruman that in Stilfontein, but let me point out to the hon member that one single mine in Stilfontein has 45 000 people in its employ. So let the hon member tell me that the mining set-up in Kuruman is bigger than in Stilfontein. Let us not argue the point with each other. These mines have gone out of their way, and are still going out of their way, to create separate facilities for the various races. If the hon member were just to have a look at what was going on at the mines, he would see that separate facilities were being created at the hostels. He said he was afraid that the mines would want to save money and would therefore turn round and say that all races should use the same facilities. Do you know how ridiculous that is? Just think of a sport like marabaraba. It is surely ridiculous to say that the Whites should now make use of the marabaraba facilities. I wonder whether the hon member really knew what he was saying? He also said that there should always be separate facilities. In my constituency there is a sports stadium that cost us R12 million to erect. Does the hon member for Kuruman now really want to tell me that for the sake of the convenience of a small handful of Whites he wants to erect another international stadium that would also cost R12 million, or does the hon member simply not want to accept the fact that there are certain facilities, for example international sports stadiums, which people can willingly share with one another?

For the sake of a small handful of Whites, yes.

In that sports stadium there are separate team dressing rooms, etc. I really think the time has now come for the hon member to forget the past and look to the future for a moment, or does he really want a separate R12 million stadium for his small handful of supporters? He is really doing some very fast back-pedalling now. That is all I can say to him.

The CP has now gobbled up the HNP, has it not. The HNP’s strong point was supposedly, so its hon members thought, the mine-workers. The CP must watch out for that HNP which it has gobbled up, because it is still going to get heartburn from it. I am warning the hon member for Kuruman. When that heartburn starts pushing up, they are going to get really ill.

I have recently been observing a phenomenon that really disturbs me. There are people who, in the past, have focused their attention on the mine-workers—in speaking about the mine-workers I am actually referring to the traditional mine-workers who work underground—but these days there are specifically hon members of the Conservative Party who are trying to sow discord among the mining officials. There is a very subtle way in which they do so. This is how they go about things: The officials are told that the mining magnates, the Chamber of Mines and the South African Government are working hand-in-glove to bedevil the mining officials. They are saying that the mines have agreed to the Government levying an additional small percentage in income tax on the mines so that it can be said that owing to the increased taxation there will be no money available this year for increases for officials. I should like to appeal to the Chamber of Mines to squash such stories immediately. I would very much like to ask the Chamber of Mines to tell the mining officials and the traditional mine-workers at once that there is no question of the Government and the Chamber of Mines working hand-in-glove in an attempt to bedevil the mine-workers and the mining officials. The quicker such tactics are counteracted, the better it will be for our country and for the mine-workers. Let the hon member for Kuruman, who is so fond of saying they will set Arrie Paulus on us, ask Arrie whether he does not want to make himself available as a candidate there.

We have already asked him.

I am glad to hear that. Did I not say that the CP had gobbled up the HNP? Arrie Paulus is very welcome to stand as a candidate there.

†In conclusion I would like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Constantia. He wanted to know whether it was true that cheaper oil was offered to the South African Government. I do not know whether the hon member knows the difference between oils such as Saudi Arabian light, other Arabian crudes and Iranian light.

Of course, I do.

Well, why do you then ask a stupid question about the availability of cheaper oil? Obviously the prices of these oils differ.

He was referring to oil of the same variety.

Does that hon member know that flashpoints differ? Does he know that the sulphur content differs? Does he know that our refineries cannot take all types of crude?

Of course we know all that.

Well, then surely the hon member should realize that if one has a supplier who has stood by one throughout the difficult periods one does not just drop that supplier simply because one can get crude $1 cheaper somewhere else. What happens if there is another oil crisis and this cheaper supplier says he cannot supply us any more, as has happened to the South African Government in the past? [Interjections.] The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central obviously thinks there will never be another oil crisis!

I did not say that.

It is always good commercial practice to obtain a certain amount of one’s supplies from a reliable supplier. If we happened to have a bum supplier coming along and offering oil at a cheaper rate, should we drop our trusted supplier?

We think it is actually the other way around.

If the hon member thinks we should drop a trusted supplier in those circumstances, he is absolutely crazy! Anyway, where were all these “outstanding” suppliers when he had the fuel crises? Now that oil is freely available, they suddenly surface! How convenient!

*In conclusion I again want to appeal to mine-workers and mining officials not to take any notice of the stories of certain hon members of the CP to which I referred a short while ago. I do think, in any event, that the mine-workers and the mining officials are responsible enough not to take any notice of that. I want to assure them that the Government will be looking after their interests at all times!

Mr Chairman, it is always a great pleasure to follow the hon member for Stilfontein because he is really an authority on the subject he discussed today.

Since I represent a constituency that originated with the discovery and refining of gold, I should like to take a look at the gold mining industry today. In spite of the depression conditions and a drop in the gold price, gold is still one of the strongest pillars of the South African economy. When we look at the annual report of the department, we find that in 1983, gold was responsible for 62,9% of the revenue obtained from the sale of all minerals. It was also responsible for 74,2% of the export revenue in that year. It is true that the gold price rose from $375,6 per fine ounce in 1982 to $423,7 per fine ounce in 1984 in spite of the high interest rates and the strong US dollar. Moreover, the earnings from gold increased by 16% between 1982 and 1983. This means an increase from R8 779 million to, R10 180 million in earnings from gold. Moreover, there was an increase in the amount of ore milled from 95 million tons to 100 million tons. In addition, the gold mining industry refined a lower grade of ore and by so doing extended the life of this industry. The mass of gold produced increased by 2,3% from 662,6 tons to 677,4 tons. New mines came into production during that year and there were major expansions with regard to existing mines.

This makes one wonder what the situation in the RSA would have been had it not been for our mineral wealth, particularly gold. The gold mining industry is still the vital artery of the South African economy. The generous aid provided to farmers and other bodies would simply not have been possible without the mining industry. Nor would there have been as much prosperity in our country in general had it not been for the gold mining industry.

In the light of this I wish to praise all workers in the industry for the outstanding work they do. We realize that they work in unpleasant circumstances. For example, they work in dusty places, dangerous places and places with very high temperatures. Ongoing research is being done to limit to a minimum the dangers that their work entails. Research has led inter alia to back-filling with waste rock and the re-pumping of sludge in the mined-out areas. We find that the gold mining industry is still one of the biggest employers in our country. Last year 29 Asians, 435 872 Blacks, 906 Coloureds and 48 581 Whites were employed in the industry. There was certainly no major shortage of skilled as well as unskilled workers, but it is important that there were no serious disputes in the gold mining industry. The labour force on the gold mines comprises 71,5% of the total labour force on the mines. However, the high accident rate in the gold mining industry, to which previous speakers have referred, is still cause for concern. It is true that there was a drop in the number of accidents last year, but unfortunately there was an increase in the number of deaths. Research is being done in this regard, too, in an effort to reduce the number of these accidents and it is expected that announcements in this regard will be made this year.

One aspect to which I should like to refer is that of fires which still occur periodically in the mining industry and which caused the death of 16 people during the past financial year as well as estimated damage of R21,5 million. Moreover, there is a great deal of concern about the fact that it is evident that many of these fires only occur in certain mines, and the possibility of sabotage is not excluded.

Purely as a matter of interest, the maximum depth at which stopping and exploitation is done is 3 604 metres underground, and the highest rock temperature on a working face was 54°C at a depth of 3 370 metres on the West Rand. Various methods are adopted to keep down the temperature. For example, mixtures of ice and water through which air is pumped in the mines are used for cooling purposes. Heatstroke and heat exhaustion caused the loss of six lives and 70 other accidents.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is correct from an organizatory point of view that two different departments, viz the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Manpower, should be concerned with labour arrangements in the gold mining industry? I think that uniformity makes it essential for Government functions to be centralized. Then, too, one wonders whether there is not too much emphasis on the price of gold, because I feel that where higher productivity can be achieved—and I believe that this can be done in our country—lower-grade gold can also be exploited and it will be possible to extend the life of the industry to a considerable degree.

I am pleased to be able to say that the Mineral and Energy Affairs Vote includes R45,5 million for research. I am sure that by means of research, cheaper extraction methods can be found. Research is being carried out by way of geological investigations and mineral technology, viz the identification of minerals, resources and, inter alia, cheap and effective extraction methods. It is also interesting to know that Mintec is commemorating its 50th year this year. This metallurgical team, under the leadership of Dr Louw Alberts, has not only done pioneering work in the field of mineral refinement, but has also achieved major breakthroughs in recovery techniques. The best example of this is the recovery of gold from old slimes dumps. In this way a national liability and eyesore is being converted into a national asset. We wholeheartedly congratulate Dr Alberts and his team on the commemoration of their 50th year and we thank them for the outstanding work that is being done by them. A task of considerable importance is being performed by the regional officials of this department. One only has to call to mind the inspectors of mines, particularly the mining commissioners, who reflect the image of this department. Their responsible task is to address prospective investors from all over the world and provide them with information. They also have to be able to negotiate at the highest level in the international economic sphere. Briefly, what this amounts to is that they have to extend the substructure for the South African economy. They are responsible for the identification of minerals by geological surveys. They also have to ensure juridical order, that is to say, the awarding of prospecting licences and mining rights to prospective mine owners and developers. They also have to impose order in respect of physical prospecting and mining processes, inter alia the maintenance of safety and health, which is done by the Government mining engineer and inspectors. They also have to provide mineral intelligence services through the mineral bureau with regard to reserves, marketing, etcetera. In addition, they have the task of providing technological services with regard to minerals, eg cheap extraction methods, metallurgical processes, etc. I just wish to convey my thanks to these people and also, in, in conclusion, congratulate Dr Louw Alberts on his promotion to the post of Director General of this department.

May I use this occasion to raise an environmental question, the question of lead in petrol. In December 1982 there was a report in The Argus according to which a former Minister undertook to investigate this question with the energy branch of his department. This response arose after a study was published, a significant study by Miss Yasmin von Schirnding of UCT, and in the wake of those findings and other findings which came to our attention we made a strong plea last year, I also personally made a plea, that South Africa should join the clearly established trend in the rest of the world towards establishing a maximum level of lead far below that which we presently have and in fact no higher than 0,15 grams per litre by a target date of 1985. The hon the Minister’s response last year was that the matter was under study by the department and that the Government’s response would be announced in due course. It is now a year later, in fact 18 months after the hon the Ministers original promise and nothing has happened. It would seem that the Government’s attitude on this matter is somewhat contemptuous. South Africa is still providing for a maximum permissible lead content in petrol of 0,836 grams per litre, which is over 500% more than most countries allow. Most major western countries allow 0,15 grams per litre. I am going to provide details shortly, but what I want to highlight is that in spite of our pleas and in spite of the Government’s posturing on this matter it is revealed in the Minister’s answer to my question on Friday, 27 April, that far from having brought down the average lead content of petrol sold in the country since this matter arose, the average lead content of petrol sold in the Republic during the latest specified period for which figures are available was revealed to be 0,76 grams per litre, for 98 octane petrol which is even higher than the figure given last year which was 0,714 grams for 98 octane. It seems clear that the Government is dragging its feet.

What is the position in other Western countries? Many other Western countries have accepted that the volumes of scientific evidence substantiates the view that lead in petrol causes high levels of lead in blood, particularly in urban areas. These major Western countries have accepted that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin which can poison the brain and which is shown to affect the health of young children, particularly in urban areas. For example, the EPA in the United States is on record to the effect that motor vehicle emissions have been shown to contribute to about 90% of lead in the air. The British Medical Journal of May 1982 reported that average blood level concentrations in the US population had dropped 37% over the period 1976 to 1980 and that the most likely explanation was the introduction of lead-free petrol. The position elsewhere in the world is that the United States, the United Kingdom, the FDR (Germany), Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium and others we may not be aware of, all have this limit of 0,15 grams either established or targeted within the next one to two years. Luxemburg, Ireland, Italy and France have brought it down to 0,4 grams and in the United States they also have lead-free petrol specified for all cars built after 1975. We are way behind the times in this matter. In the United States the Appeal Court itself has ruled—I am quoting from a judgment—that “today there is compelling evidence that gasoline lead is a major cause of lead poisoning in young children”. An interesting example arose just the other day in Cape Town when it was established by a medical technician that during the course of the Two Oceans Marathon blood lead levels increased significantly. [Interjections.]

Did you run in the Two Oceans Marathon?

No, I did not. I will stay away from it until you reduce the lead in petrol. There simply is not enough time to spell out the full extent of the massively accumulating evidence in this regard. One can only on this occasion touch on the more interesting items. But what does seem clear is that there is an overwhelming case for South Africa to act upon the mounting scientific evidence and the practical examples of Government action elsewhere in the world. I wish to repeat my plea of last year for a two stage policy—0,15 grams by 1985 or 1986 and lead-free after that depending on practical considerations which we can discuss in the joint select committee.

Do you have the figures now for the present lead content in the United States?

I understand it is 0,15 grams at present and it is intended to be reduced.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to say to the hon member that this question of lead poisoning is a very fascinating and important subject, and although I do not agree with his approach, with the way in which he presented it, I do think that the principle of the matter must be given due attention. I agree wholeheartedly with that. I have had personal experience of this in practice in respect of certain types of worker and it is a very important matter. It is just that my approach is somewhat different to that adopted by the hon member.

I, too, wish to convey my congratulations to Dr Louw Alberts. I think that it is very seldom that a department is so unfortunate as to lose so brilliant a man as Mr Sarel du Plessis, and at the same time so fortunate as to obtain so brilliant a replacement as Dr Louw Alberts. We are really fortunate in this regard.

I should like to make a few remarks today about the subject of atomic power for energy, with specific reference to safety aspects at Koeberg. When I say safety, I do not refer to security, but to medical safety.

May I ask the hon member a question?

I shall answer a question if the hon the Minister promises me that having done so, he will stop smoking.

Is the hon the Minister prepared to accept the hon member’s condition?

Yes, Sir. Will the hon member ask the hon the Minister when I am going to get those two cents on a litre of fuel for the Road Fund.

I am quite prepared to support the hon the Minister. We can take the lead out of petrol and add two cents per litre. In the place where I am now speaking, I am actually making my maiden speech. I am not yet quite accustomed to this old man’s chamber, and even though I have now been a grandfather for seven months, other grandfathers also trouble one.

I think that it was with great pride that the hon the Minister was able to announce on 14 March this year that at about 09h25 the first uranium 235 atom was split in the nuclear reactor at Koeberg to set up a chain reaction. Koeberg is the first nuclear power station in Africa. I think there are approximately 311 in 27 different countries throughout the world. Koeberg is now regarded as the second biggest engineering project in the history of South Africa. It is calculated that only Sasol II was bigger. A few weeks ago, in the column “Brandpuntkommentaar” in Rapport, a certain Mr Willem Landman wrote an article entitled “Nie net vir Kenners en Politici”. It concerned the use of nuclear power, the safety, etc—precisely the subject I wish to deal with now. I, too, wish to say that I am not an authority, but I am at least a politician and, as a medical practitioner, I have had a reasonable amount of training in respect of radiation, radio isotopes, X-rays, the so-called cobalt bomb, the effects of nuclear energy radiation, etc. Therefore, although I am not an authority, but a layman, I do think that like the gentleman in Rapport, I have the right to philosophize about this subject.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned for lunch I was mentioning with pride the commissioning of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, and I also referred to the somewhat philosophic approach of a philosopher of the University of the Western Cape. He said that it was not only politicians and scientists who could discuss this matter. I do not agree with much of what he said in the article, but agree wholeheartedly with the standpoint that it is not only politicians and scientists who may discuss this matter. Full account must be taken of public opinion by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I think that we can say with pride that public opinion in South Africa is very well balanced with regard to the matter of nuclear energy. I want to quote to you an interesting anecdote which appeared in a book written in 1938 by Dr C C Nepgen. The title of the book is Die Sosiale Gewete van die Afrikaanssprekendes. He is here specifically discussing the Afrikaner, but I think that to a large extent it applies to all South Africans. He says that the Afrikaner is conservative. There can be no two opinions on this score. This was in the time when conservative still meant what it should mean. Dr Nepgen quotes from “Story of an African Farm” by Olive Schreiner. In this book public opinion is described in terms of what tant Sannie had to say about new things:

Mr Chairman, fortunately that was the exception to the rule.

That was the CP.

I know that there are people in the CP who probably still feel that way. The writer again quotes Olive Schreiner. He quotes from page 259 of her book Thoughts of South Africa which is about public opinion and about whether we can take anything new. Olive Schreiner has the following to say about the Afrikaner:

The writer then goes on to say that the Afrikaner has it in him, when the circumstances of the time demand it and the necessary stimulation is present, to associate himself with what is most modern. This is exactly what has happened here with regard to nuclear energy. I have piles of statistics here. The hon member for Pretoria East, too, made a fine speech in this regard. However, the point I want to make is that public opinion in South Africa accepts the nuclear power station.

I wish to conclude by saying that the people who work and live at that power station are quite content and happy about their safety. I know what I am talking about. My own son-in-law works there, and the baby of seven months that I spoke about, whose grandfather I am, lives at that power station. I am in touch with those people often and regularly. The people who know what is going on, and the family of those people, are quite happy and contented. I also ask that we in South Africa continue to adopt this balanced approach.

One day I was speaking to an American about Richard’s Bay and Saldanha and I said to him: In America things are always bigger and better, and I suppose you have better developments than that. He replied that one no longer had this kind of development in America and that those who sought to preserve were overdoing it to such an extent that they could no longer build a Saldanha in America; it was out of the question. In America the development of nuclear energy has now ground to a halt to a large extent. However, I predict that the Americans will fall back on nuclear energy as soon as the energy problem crops up again. In the interim, let us, like other developing countries such as Taiwan, try to maintain our balanced approach to this matter as far as public opinion is concerned.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Vilonel will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I have limited time. When the hon member for Constantia was speaking there was a lot of comment from the other side of the House that it was speculation and that we had no facts. I want to tell those hon members that the facts we had were so important that the hon the Prime Minister handed them to the Advocate-General. We have photostats of contracts signed between the Strategic Fuel Fund and people in the outside world. We have photostats of telexes sent between the Strategic Fuel Fund and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. We have photostats of documents relating to the shipment of oil to South Africa, about the contract price that should have been paid for that oil and the price that was actually paid for that oil. Those are facts, they are not speculation.

Mr Chairman, on 22 February 1983, in the House, I called for two things to happen. Firstly, that the Auditor-General should audit the funds paid into the State Oil Fund and the Equalization Fund which is controlled by the SFF Association. I pointed out at that time that these funds amounted to some R880 million per annum. I, secondly, recommended a select committee of the House to investigate the Salem affair—I quote from Hansard, col 1519, 1983—“so that we can prevent a similar occurrence in the future, and lastly, so that we establish better parliamentary control over taxpayers’ funds that amount to nearly one billion rand per annum”. The Government paid no heed to these calls which have been repeated when the opportunity arose. The last occasion was last week in the Prime Minister’s Vote, and was made by the Leader of the official Opposition. They are now paying the penalty for that refusal and the country is flooded with a mass of rumour, speculation and allegations. The concern of the taxpayer about our purchases of oil is escalating. It has not only been the PFP that has called for action. In 1981 a British broker wrote to the Prime Minister to complain of irregularities amounting to fraud in his dealings with South Africa. There is a Press report of a meeting between the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce and NP MPs, at which the Chamber voiced its concern over oil purchases. There was no action. Two oil traders spoke to the Minister—not this Minister, a previous one, and some of his officials—offering oil at cheaper prices than we were currently paying. Nothing was done. There is example after example. My hon colleague mentioned the Salem case, SFF and Sasol being sued by Sellier, Chiavelli and Xenopoulos, the “sniffer” plane and the allegations handed to the Advocate-General. We seem to lurch from one disaster to the next and yet we have no action from the Government other than to invoke secrecy and to extend secrecy provisions. The former Minister, Minister Du Plessis, attempted to prohibit the publication of my speech in Parliament and now, according to a report in last week’s Sunday Tribune, the present Minister refused them permission to publish without even reading the article that they had submitted. I submit that we need a select committee. The Advocate-General is only dealing with certain specific allegations. He is not dealing with the Salem affair, with the premiums we are paying for oil, or with the people we are dealing with. These are the three subjects on which I wish to speak.

I will start with the questions on the Salem affair that are still outstanding:

1. 1. Why has no investigation, even now, been instituted by the South African Police into this matter? The Minister of Law and Order answered a question, only this week, in the House saying that they had investigated nothing.
2. 2. Why did the Strategic Fuel Fund never lay a complaint with the South African Police after being defrauded of R30 million?
3. 3. Did the Strategic Fuel Fund, I ask the Minister this, refuse assistance to the lawyers of Shell or Lloyds of London and Scotland Yard? Was it only after Minister Du Plessis gave instructions in 1983 that the Strategic Fuel Fund revealed information about their involvement in the Salem affair? This seems a reluctance to track down international crooks.
4. 4. Why did Minister De Klerk, when he was in a position to do so, not give similar instructions to those given by Minister Du Plessis nor order a proper investigation of the matter? It is not action that we complain of but lack of action that is our concern.
5. 5. How did Dr Mostert convince the Cabinet that they should pay R30 million to Shell with no proper investigation being instituted?
6. 6. Why did the Strategic Fuel Fund pay out $46 million to Beets Trading in Zug, a significant town, without prior possession of the bills of lading for the shipment of the oil?

Mr Chairman, I had a phone call last night from which I got the information that Mr J C J van Vuuren, into whose account at Merca Bank R10 million was paid, had been deported by the British Police for certain actions that he has carried out in Britain and that he should be arriving in South Africa at any moment, either this morning or perhaps tomorrow. I understand that according to his deportation order he has to be out of England by 6 May, in other words in two days’ time. I hope that the officials will note that he is arriving back in South Africa so that they can question him. We need answers to these questions.

The second point I want to raise is the premiums we are paying for our oil. We are well aware of the fact that there are different grades of oil. I want to start with a question to the Minister. Who authorizes the premium in any contract? Mr Chairman, you see that they keep quiet. Is it authorized by Strategic Fuel Fund officials or his department or he himself? What about his predecessors? Did they authorize the premium? Our first indication of excessive premiums came from the Salem affair. We paid $34,50 per barrel which the Strategic Fuel Fund considered an advantageous price. Yet for Kuwaiti light crude the official Government selling price was $25,50. A premium, therefore, of $9 per barrel. On that shipment alone the premium over official Government selling price was $13,5 million. I believe that we do now pay lesser premiums but for a considerable period of time we paid through the nose. There are allegations that that was not necessary. I want to quote from the Sunday Express of 15 April 1984:

I say that is a lie.

You say that is a lie. Well, that is fair enough. Why do you not take the Sunday Express to the Press Council? I quote further:

This could still be happening today.

The next point I want to deal with is the people with whom we deal. I have already outlined the backgrounds of some of the people in the Salem affair. They were such that I am surprised that we dealt with them. People have been enriched to an incredible degree through our dealings with them. Names that have appeared in the Press in this connection are John Deuss, Marc Rich and Marino Chiavelli. Last Sunday’s Sunday Times said:

I want to ask whether that is correct. I heard a “ja” from somebody. The hon member Dr Vilonel said “ja”. The hon the Minister says nothing. [Interjections.] If he was not supplying oil to South Africa they should not object if I quote from a publication that I actually drew from our library yesterday. It has the library stamp on it and it is called “Africa Confidential”. It bears the date January 5,1983, and I wish to quote from it:

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for giving me an opportunity to continue my speech.

I quote further from this newspaper report:

I would recommend this newspaper report to members on the other side of the House. There is much more I would like to quote, but time does not allow me to deal with it.

The extent of the contract mentioned in this article is 4 500 million dollars. If Chiavelli paid the official Government selling price for his oil at that time—we are told that he has good Arab connections—he would have paid 25.50 dollars a barrel. As the Strategic Fuel Fund believed in 1979 that 34.50 dollars was a good price to pay at that time—they said so in their memorandum on the Salem affair—it is possible that they paid Chiavelli a premium of 9 dollars per barrel. If this was the case, Chiavelli has profited to the tune of something in excess of 1 000 million dollars over a period of three years.

On Sunday it was reported in the Press that his tax payment to the Receiver of Revenue in South Africa was R176 in one year and 75 cents in the next. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member for Kimberley North thinks that is also amusing. I believe I have said enough in this regard.

I want to refer to other people who have supplied us with oil. The same publication has this to say about John Deuss:

The hon member for Edenvale referred to Marc Rich and his shenanigans. This publication has the following to say about him:

I believe I have made out a case for three things. The first is that there should be an end to secrecy of this kind. Secondly, I have made out a case for better parliamentary control of funds. Nobody, including the hon the Minister, has told us why the Auditor-General is not allowed to audit these funds. Surely, if there is anybody who we can trust in this Parliament, it must be the Auditor-General. During the Information affair he was not allowed to audit the Special Defence Account and that went seriously wrong. He is now not allowed to audit the funds taken from the South African public for the purchase of oil and this has caused problems.

Finally, we believe that a Select Committee of Parliament should be appointed with the specific intention of investigating our oil purchases. This has nothing to do with the allegations of dishonesty, but simply to investigate the oil supply to South Africa over the last five years. It has been for the last five years that we have been paying these enormous premiums. I grant the hon the Minister that these premiums have come down, but South Africa has been bled for far too long regarding its purchases of oil supplies.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central advocated that a select committee be appointed to investigate this entire matter. If a select committee is appointed, will the hon member give evidence before the committee on the anonymous telephone calls he has received? What substance does that have for a select committee? [Interjections.] I receive telephone calls from people who claim that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is obsessed with the oil affair. The same applies to calls he gets, whether or not they are about oil. He is just as polluted with oil as the sea is from oil-spillage from ships.

Only silly people phone you.

The hon member is right, it may be that only silly people phone me, but does the hon member know how silly...

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Kimberley South entitled to say that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is polluted?

Order! Hon members must not say that to one another. The hon member must withdraw the word “polluted”.

Sir, I withdraw it, out of respect for his grey hairs.

You must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not provoke the hon member into saying something like that again.

I shall rather confine myself to something far more beautiful than oil, namely diamonds. If one looks at the annual report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, one finds that the position occupied by the South African diamond industry in the South African economy is by no means inferior to that of the gold and coal mining industries. A total mass of approximately 10,3 million carats was produced in the RSA between 1 January and 31 December 1983.

The sales figure for rough diamonds during this period amounted to the considerable total of R525,2 million. It is also significant to note that some of the best quality stones were sold to the Republic’s own diamond cutters. The average carat value of the approximately 1,8 million carats of rough diamonds sold to our diamond cutters for approximately R143,4 million, was R79,54, whereas the average value per carat of the 9,5 million or so carats of rough diamonds sold abroad for R143,4 million, was R40,27. Consequently it is clear that although a large quantity of the Republic’s rough diamond production is marketed abroad, it is the poorer qualities and apparently the smaller categories of diamonds which cannot yet be cut economically in South Africa. What is true is that countries like Israel and Belgium, who are not themselves diamond-producing countries, are able to cut these smaller categories of diamonds. Ways and means ought therefore to be investigated to attain this potential advantage for South Africa too. I want to add that in the independent Black states in particular, where there is a relatively large source of cheap labour, we must do everything in our power to establish the diamond-cutting industry.

As far as rough diamonds are concerned, the following aspects come into prominence. Up to now our diamond production has mainly been disposed of through the so-called single-channel marketing system. According to estimates approximately 90% or more of the RSA’s total diamond production was until relatively recently channelled through these controlled sources, who are all members of the Diamond Producers’ Association. The number of smaller diamond producers has increased, inter alia as a result of the granting of marine concessions, and their contribution to diamond production is no longer insignificant. But these people are not members of the Diamond Producers’ Association. They enter the open market, locally or abroad, and apparently owing to this state of affairs it is not always clear what is going on in these so-called uncontrolled sources.

Question arise regarding the effectiveness of their protective measures, particularly in consequence of recent newspaper reports about the tremendous increase in the illicit diamond trade in the Western Cape. There are also questions about the prices at which diamonds derived from these sources are marketed abroad and whether the RSA is receiving its rightful share of taxes and whether, on the other hand, the State can take further steps to accommodate these miners.

So far the diamond industry in the Republic has been a protected and closed industry. But thanks to a change in policy, further licences have been granted by the hon the Minister during the past year. There are also positive signs that this industry, like the diamond-cutting industries abroad, will be given the opportunity to enter the free market. But attempts must be made to evaluate the diamond-cutting industry properly and to identify problem areas and also to ensure that the country will derive the greatest possible benefit from the improvement of this important mineral resource.

I want to give an example. Not all the holders of new diamond-cutting licences issued during the past 18 months, receive the 10% discount the Diamond Trading Company gives existing licence holders. I asked the same question last year in this debate and the hon the Minister said then that the Van Wyk Committee was giving attention to this problem. I should like to know from the present hon Minister whether finality has been reached on this problem.

When one considers the diamond-cutting industry, one finds that there are a large number of Government activities that have an effect on this industry. As a matter of fact, this applies to the diamond industry as a whole. For example, there are 20 or more returns and forms that have to be completed every month and submitted to various Government bodies. The Departments of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Finance, Law and Order and Manpower all have an interest in this industry. Institutions like the Diamond Cutting Industry Board, the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the Diamond and Gold Branch of the SA Police—to mention but a few examples—are also all interested in this industry and have certain requirements it must meet. Considering the importance of the diamond industry, the question arises whether there is co-ordination between all these Government institutions. Put more positively, is the time not ripe for the establishment of an umbrella or regulatory Government body which, on the one hand, can advise the Government authoritatively on the needs and problems of the diamond industry and thus act as the policy-determining body and, on the other hand, guard against malpractices and ensure that the Government receives its rightful share from this important resource?

All uncut diamonds have to be exported from the headquarters of the State assessor. At the moment the diamonds of all independent diamond producers are exported by the police. This inevitably leads to under-invoicing as a result of which the State of necessity suffers losses totalling several million rands annually.

The next two questions I also put to the hon the Minister last year. The 15% export duty on diamonds must be abolished. There is no imposition on cut diamonds that are exported, but there is an excise duty of approximately 30% and a further GST of 7% on all cut diamonds sold in South Africa. This is a total of 37% in tax, and in brief this means that a cut South African diamond can be purchased more cheaply abroad than in South Africa. The hon the Minister’s reply... [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, since the Advocate-General recently issued a statement in which he called on all parties that had any knowledge of the oil situation to supply him with the information and, in the second place, requested that people refrain from speculation in the meantime, I think it is a pity that a great deal of the time being spent on this debate was again devoted to speculation and conjecture on the oil situation. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said, for example, that if Mr Chiavelli had purchased oil at a prevailing price of $25.4, he would have made a big profit. This is nothing but a speculative statement and is not constructive at all. During the discussion of his Vote, the hon the Prime Minister stated quite clearly that as far as the Salem affair was concerned, certain documents had been handed over to the Attorney-General for further investigation. I assume that this was done on the basis of certain enquiries and that these could lead to certain criminal proceedings.

These two investigations combined, namely those of the Advocate-General and the Attorney-General could give finality in this matter. After their reports and actions have been made public, the necessity for the appointment of a select committee on this matter can be discussed. Personally I consider it presumptuous to make such statements now while the two investigations are still being made.

Do those two enquiries cover all the questions?

I do not want to become involved any further in the oil affair, particularly because the Advocate-General made this request.

At the beginning of his speech the hon member for Edenvale emphasized the importance of South Africa’s mineral reserves. The hon the Minister also referred to the necessity for a co-ordinated energy and mineral strategy. I want to refer to these two matters in a wider context.

The fact that South Africa is the only country in the world that is able to mine 42 different mineral commodities and that a large number of these are strategic, inevitably places us at the focal point of global strategy, which in itself justifies a comprehensive mineral strategy, not only for South Africa, but for the whole of Southern Africa, because many of our neighbouring states also produce strategic minerals and use South Africa’s harbours and rail network to export these minerals. The strategic importance of our position in Southern Africa, and specifically South Africa, is emphasized when one compares the percentages of strategic minerals found in South Africa and the Soviet Union, for example. South Africa has at its disposal 86% of the reserves in the platinum group of metals and the Soviet Union 13%. South Africa also has at its disposal 83% of the chrome ore supplies and the Soviet Union only 1%. South Africa has 45% of all manganese reserves and the Soviet Union 45%. As far as vanadium is concerned, South Africa has 64% of the reserves and the Soviet Union has 33%. In addition, South Africa also has the largest coal reserves in the Western world and the second largest uranium reserves. South Africa also has 50% of all the gold reserves and the Soviet Union 20%.

But South Africa not only has important reserves, it is also one of the foremost producers of these metals and has also made tremendous progress in the refining of metals. A quarter of a century ago no one considered South Africa’s large chrome reserves to be of any use at all, because the ratio of iron to chrome was such that it was considered useless. But refining processes have made it possible for these reserves to be considered the largest and nowadays South Africa is in fact a leading chrome producer.

Other examples are that South Africa is a leader in the field of mining technology, the world leader in the field of the liquefaction of coal and the manufacture of petrol from coal and one of the five countries in the world that has developed its own uranium enrichment process.

On the one hand, of course, South Africa’s and South West Africa’s strength lies in this situation, because we are an indispensable source and a responsible and reliable supplier of strategic minerals to the West. On the other hand this is also a threat to the Soviet Union’s global strategy to deny strategic minerals to the West. Against this dangerous background we find that for political and other reasons the states of Southern Africa are divided whereas, if they could develop a co-ordinated strategy, Southern Africa could form a mighty power-bloc with considerable leverage vis-à-vis both the West and the East, which would make Southern Africa far less susceptible to manipulation by these super powers.

Consequently I foresee a need for drawing up a Southern African strategy for the development of energy sources. With the signing of the Nkomati Accord this need is not only being met, but possibilities are also being created to achieve more in this connection. I am not thinking of something like the Opec oil cartel, because it has become an instrument of extortion. It must be a co-ordinated strategy which leads to the negotiation of better prices.

†This can also lead to the pooling of resources to which the hon the Prime Minister referred at the signing of the Nkomati Accord. These are the first steps to make Southern Africa independent to a much larger extent of super powers and which can only be to the benefit of the region.

Unfortunately, my time has run out and I cannot develop my theory further. In passing and in the friendliest of spirits I think that against this background which I have sketched, I find the Conservative Party’s rejection of the Cahora Bassa Agreement rather incomprehensible.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to certain matters to which hon members referred.

The hon member for Rosettenville, in his normally enthusiastic manner, supported the Cahora Bassa agreement, and I want to thank him for that.

I also want to record that I extend my particular appreciation and thanks to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department for the great task they performed and all the riding around they had to do in order to have the Cahora Bassa agreement finalized. For that my department and I wish to express our thanks to him and to the members of his department.

†The hon member for South Coast referred to matters which are internal to Escom. I will scrutinize the hon member’s Hansard and look at his remarks together with the recommendations of Dr Wim de Villiers’s report as soon as we receive it. Hopefully it will be towards the end of June. I assure the hon member that we will definitely give attention to what he has said, as some of the points raised are of importance.

The hon member for Constantia referred to a very interesting point regarding the lead content in fuel and I fully agree with him. Over the past few weeks we have had discussions in the department on this matter and we are also concerned about the health situation I have an announcement which I wanted to make, but because of the time limit it is not possible to do it now. Suffice it to say that we will very shortly look at the possibility of reducing the lead content in 98 octane petrol which has the highest content, especially in the coastal areas. We will also extend that to the interior and if possible see to it that 87 octane petrol is used instead of 93. There is almost a belief that people living in coastal areas should use 98 octane petrol. However, I am convinced that this is not necessary as 93 octane is as good as 98 octane. We are giving serious attention to this and will shortly do something about it. I fully support the hon member’s views on the health danger of the lead content of fuel.

As regards the oil matter, I will refer to it later.

*The characteristic and important aspect of this debate thus far has been the question of the establishment of an energy strategy or plan. Virtually every hon member who spoke made some or other remark about this. One matter, however, must be rectified. The impression must not be created that there is no energy strategy in South Africa. We do have an energy policy and strategy. In line with technological progress, and as alternative sources are investigated and developed, however, it is of cardinal importance for our energy strategy and policy to be constantly adapted. The fact that I said, earlier in my speech, that we are working on that, does not mean that we are doing so because we do not have anything of that kind as yet. We are working on it because what we have thus far done has been done in accordance with a specific plan and has to be adapted, brought up to date and brought into line with new technologies that are developing. New priorities must be determined in the light of new circumstances.

The hon member for Boksburg also referred to that, pointing out that what this basically amounted to was energy economics. The use of energy, whether in a building, industry or mine, must be done on the basis of an energy programme for that undertaking. It is not a question of energy-saving, but rather of the economic utilization of energy. The hon member for Boksburg made this point very clearly. The local authorities, mining houses and large industrialists ought to take note of the fact that in future there ought to be an energy programme for each of their activities. Certain regulations or conditions must be laid down, for example, making this compulsory. The hon member for Boksburg gave a wonderful example when he said that an energy programme should be submitted with the building plans for any large building in South Africa.

The hon member for Boksburg also referred to the take-over of municipalities in the northern suburbs of Cape Town, for example Bellville, Tygerberg and Durbanville, which are still being provided with power by Escom at the moment. Escom is not a small-scale distribution organization. It is a power generation organization, a large-scale distribution organization. The pattern in South Africa is such that local authorities look after their own distribution within their own areas, and that is exactly what is happening here. There is high-level co-operation between Escom and these local authorities, and the implications of such a take-over are being investigated. Without tariffs being increased appreciatively, it is a source of revenue for that local authority. It is essential for our local authorities to have a source of revenue. I am convinced that Escom, together with the local authorities, will effect the take-over of these areas in a responsible manner. No evaluation is being done of the assets being taken over. The local authorities will merely take over the outstanding loans on the distribution network within the relevant areas.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Grey-town touched upon quite a few aspects.

That is the way he usually does things.

My colleague says that is the way he usually does things, but unfortunately I must tell my colleague that I do agree with some of the matters the hon member for Greytown spoke about.

The hon member referred to the question of fuel-selling hours, in other words the times during which fuel is available. For some time now this matter has been discussed with the motor industry, and we have also instituted an economic investigation into the profitability of filling stations. From that investigation it has become apparent that from a specified date we should increase the filling station margin by 0,1 cent per litre. So from 19 April the petrol price margins allowed for filling stations will be increased by 0,1 cent per litre.

We made a few calculations in connection with the abolition of the R5 levy. In a certain sense I am in favour of the abolition of this levy, but there are, in truth, some practical problems involved. If we were to abolish it, it would actually mean that filling stations would have to remain open for 24 hours per day. In the investigation into the profit margins of filling stations, certain recommendations were also made about this, recommendations which boil down to the fact that if we were to abolish this levy, allowing filling stations to remain open 24 hours per day, the fuel price would have to be increased by approximately 0,5 cents per litre to compensate the owners of filling stations for the additional costs they would have to incur in regard to security measures and extra employees. Those are the simple economic implications of the matter. We are in the process of considering alternatives, and I believe that we shall be able to devise alternative solutions to this problem. If we do not succeed in arriving at an alternative, then I do think there are none, and then we would simply have to allow filling stations to remain open, increasing the fuel price by 0,5 cent per litre. I am not, however, prepared to impose that 0,5 cent per litre as a levy.

The hon member for Welkom spoke about speed limits. The speed limits was introduced as a fuel-saving measure, and at the moment there is no reason for us to retain that speed limit as a fuel-saving measure. So it has already been decided, in principle, to increase the speed limit and not to continue using the speed limit as a fuel-saving measure any longer. So this is no longer a departmental matter, since it is now a matter involving the respective provinces. The provinces, however, are faced with certain problems in regard to admission of guilt fines and the Criminal Procedure Act. The provinces, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, are investigating this matter, however, and as soon as these negotiations have been concluded and the provinces are ready, I can assure the hon member that the speed limit will be lifted. In order to avoid any speculation, let me simply announce right now that the speed limit on freeways will probably be 120 km per hour, but for safety reasons the speed limits on two-way roads will still have to remain at a lower level.

The final point the hon member raised was one relating to motor sport, aircraft, power boats, etc. It is true that we are still asking those people to submit information to us, but we are merely doing so for statistical purposes. We discussed the matter briefly and decided that we could perhaps go on collecting statistical data for a longer period. We are therefore giving attention to this matter and thank the hon member for having mentioned it again.

The hon member for Welkom referred to the closure of the Beisa mine, and in my opinion the step that was taken in closing the mine is indicative of only one thing, and that is the completely responsible manner in which the mining industry handles its affairs. For example, it closed down the mine in the hon member’s constituency, yet it re-employed the labourers from that mine elsewhere in the industry. I therefore think that we should take note of the responsible manner in which the mining industry handles its own affairs.

The hon member for Welkom and another hon member referred to the transfer of the mining industry’s labour matters to the Department of Manpower. If I remember correctly, this was one of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, but the matter is not, however, as simple as that. The department is holding discussions about this with the Department of Manpower, but such a transfer cannot summarily take place, because there are also other parties involved. Before resorting to such a transfer, one has to consult the other parties. And the hon member did ask us to consult the interested parties and to investigate the matter further. I can assure him that we shall be doing so.

The hon member for Pretoria East referred to energy planning, and I thank him for his contribution. The main theme of our discussion here is, after all, energy planning, our energy policy and what that entails. I should also like to associate myself with the fine sentiments the hon member expressed about Escom. Amongst other things he mentioned cheap electricity and the fact that there has virtually never been any power shortage in the country. Another important point he made is that in our energy strategy we should also take the sources in other countries into consideration, including the TBVC countries’ capacity to generate electricity in their own areas, and I agree with him that we should, in fact, take that into consideration. He also emphasized the importance of electricity, having spoken with great authority about nuclear energy. I shall be reacting to that at a later stage, however, when I get round to the hon member Dr Vilonel.

I now come to the hon member for Kuruman and the question of our concession to the farmers. In that regard the farmers of Potgietersrus had this to say to me: “Danie, if you were to make that concession, we would all vote for the NP”. According to my information the hon member for Kuruman lost hundreds of votes as a result of this concession.

The hon member also mentioned the responsible way in which the mining industry conducted its affairs and the trouble it took to provide facilities at the mines, and I thank him for having done so. We all know that mines are not established in areas where all the facilities are already available, being established where there are minerals available. In order to obtain labour for the mines, the necessary facilities and housing must be provided. The hon member specifically focused our attention on this aspect.

The hon member for Stilfontein is an expert in the field of mining, and I should like to link up with what he said and, in a manner of speaking, cross swords with the hon member for Kuruman. There is no question at all of the department working hand-in-glove with one of the other two partners in some or other underhand dealings, whether it be the Mineworkers’ Union or the Chamber of Mines. In this connection I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Stilfontein said. We are partners in an undertaking, our object being to manage, as economically as possible, one of the most important industries in South Africa. All three partners have a responsibility in this connection, and if there is any question of things being done “hand-in-glove”, let me say that there are three hands in that glove and that we intend to keep it that way. Let me again thank the hon member for Stilfontein for his contribution.

The hon member for Carletonville is also a great authority on the mining industry and conveyed some very fine sentiments to that industry. He furnished interesting data about the depth of mines and also about how hot it gets underground, again bringing home to us that mine-workers do their work under extremely difficult conditions. Reference was also made to the accident rate, further proof that these workers are prepared to build up South Africa’s economy and its mineral industry in the face of very dangerous circumstances. The hon member also paid tribute to the research body, Mintek, and I should like to associate myself with what he said. He referred to the manpower aspect, which I have already dealt with. I should like to thank him for his support.

The hon member Dr Vilonel spoke about Koeberg, and about that I just want to make the following remark: I think we owe a great debt of thanks to Escom, the AEB and related AEB organizations for the excellent work they did at Koeberg. I am not merely referring to the technological work, however, but also to the way in which they assured the people living in the vicinity that what was happening there held no dangers for them. On behalf of this Committee let me extend my sincere thanks to those bodies for the fine way in which they handled public opinion. I am sorry that the hon the Leader of the House is not here at the moment, because I wanted to make him an offer, and that is that if he could stop smoking during Cabinet meetings for one year, I would give him 2 cents per litre for his road building fund.

The hon member for Kimberley South is unfortunately not here at present, but he also raised a few points. I shall not, however, be replying to them now; I shall rather do so in writing. By the way, the matters I do not deal with here and now, I shall take up in writing with the relevant members.

The hon member for Kimberley South also, amongst other things, touched on a very important aspect of the diamond mining industry, and that is the co-ordination in this industry. At present we are giving in-depth attention to the co-ordination of the activities of the diamond mining industry. To a certain extent the diamond industry is virtually smothered in a blanket of criminality. If one talks to anyone about diamonds, he normally edges away in fear of the police perhaps apprehending him. It is our intention, however, to whip off that blanket of apparent criminality that is covering the diamond industry, and to do everything in our power to make it the finest industry in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I promised that I would again speak about the oil question, and I now want to make the following statement, which I am making with the utmost sense of responsibility. As soon as the hon member, who had such a great deal to say about oil—I am not going to mention his name, because I do not want to—gives me the names of his anonymous callers and correspondents, I shall discuss oil matters with him, but not before. What I am going to say now, I am going to say for the benefit of the hon member for Edenvale and the hon member for Constantia.

†What I am going to say now, I will say very explicitly so that there can be no misunderstanding as to what I want to say and why I said it. I am not prepared to add anything to what has already been said on many occasions by the hon the Prime Minister and myself on these issues. With regard to the Salem incident, we were the victims of a fraudulent action. We have already agreed on that and accepted it. There are three court cases pending in three countries. We have co-operated by submitting information to the relevant legal authorities in those countries in an effort to assist them. In South Africa all information obtained through thorough investigation has been submitted to the Attorney-General for his evaluation and his decision. Once he has given his decision I will be prepared to take the necessary steps. This is a promise I make to the Committee.

The speculative information referring to allegations of illegalities and irregularities in oil transactions received from so-called reliable, reputable anonymous sources, has been referred to the Advocate-General. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that according to the Advocate-General’s Press statement of a few days ago, no additional information had been submitted to him. These so-called authentic, reliable, reputable informers who choose to remain anonymous, have apparently disappeared. I therefore call on the persons or bodies once again to submit their information to the Advocate-General. If they are not prepared to do that, I have no alternative but to regard them as scandalmongers. My reply to the hon member for Constantia is that I am not prepared to enter into a debate with anonymous people.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to reply to questions at this stage.

The Advocate-General’s findings will be submitted to Parliament, and Parliament will deal with this matter in its usual prescribed and competent way. Indeed, I can think of no higher authority in South Africa to deal with this matter.

*Mr Chairman, I just want to raise one further point. I am prepared to acknowledge today that the days of 1979 were the “high seas” days as far as oil is concerned. We had to buy oil wherever we could get it, and we had to do so under any circumstances. Since 1980 the premiums determined for oil have been fixed by each successive Minister, and I am prepared to say in public today that the 1980 premium was pegged at a maximum of $8 per barrel. That premium was fixed by the relevant Ministers. In 1981 the premium was pegged at $5 plus per barrel; in 1982 it was fixed at $3,5 per barrel, and at present the maximum premium is fixed at $1,9 per barrel. The premiums are therefore controlled, and in present-day contracts they are part of the contractual arrangements.

In conclusion I want to thank all hon members for a very interesting and profitable debate, although I am sorry that there is one hon member who is apparently unable to exercise any soundness of judgment.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister spoke about permissible premiums; may I ask him whether that is over market price?

Sir, that is over and above the official government selling price, which is the accepted price.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he also administers premiums over contract price?

Mr Chairman, we do not have premiums over contract prices. We have premiums per barrel and nothing else.

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

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I am not prepared to answer any questions from that hon member.

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

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I am not prepared to answer any further questions.

It is a very important one.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

In conclusion I want to thank hon members for their interesting contributions. I might just mention that during the lunch break I had discussions with our new Director-General and with representatives of the AEB and Escom, Messrs Tattersall and Stofberg, who told me that they were particularly impressed by the high level at which the debate was conducted. I think that is a feather in our caps, because these are people with an intimate knowledge of the subjects we have been discussing. I thank hon members once more for a very pleasant debate.

Vote agreed to.