When the House adjourned I was dealing with the effects of the ideological policy of the Government as applied in the Western Cape in regard to the removal of Bantu from this area and its economic consequences. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has said that industrialists and farmers must turn to greater mechanization. To support his contention, he continually quotes figures to this House. I think he has a complex about the brick-makers, because he is continually telling us that there must be a higher degree of mechanization in the brick-making industry, which will reduce the demand for labour. Sir, we accept that a high degree of mechanization can reduce the demand not only for black labour but white labour as well. We also accept that there is wastage, but you will find that industry in South Africa is fairly well organized and they watch the position. They will certainly not pay for any labour which is not productive. When this scheme for the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape was started I think the Minister of Transport was the first to start removing them, and he reduced the Bantu staff in the Salt River workshops to a large extent. He even closed down one Bantu township run by the Railways. In his application of the policy of the Government he also ran into difficulties. It is interesting to see the reply to a question I put on the Order Paper on 8th February, 1966, in regard to the average number of Bantu employed in the Salt River workshops. We find that in 1962 there were 301, in 1963 there were 265, and in 1964 there were 257, and then the Minister ran into difficulties and we find that the number jumped to 495 in 1965. So we see that even the Railways have run into this difficulty. They followed the Minister of Bantu Administration system and they applied for permits to employ Bantu labour after trying very hard to get Coloured labour. The Minister of Bantu Administration must not tell us that there is not a high degree of mechanization in this particular workshop or in the docks. I think the Railways take a lead in mechanization in this country. They had to do it because there is a lack not only of Black labour but also of White skilled labour. In line with the policy of the Government, the Minister of Transport employed some 300 Coloureds who were brought from the Transkei. It is interesting to read a report in The Cape Times of 6th May, 1965, under the headline “Coloureds Take Quick Jobs in Docks”. This is what it says—

It went on to say that the labour required in the docks did not suit the Coloured worker and that the African was very much more suitable. So there you have the picture of what is actually happening in the Department itself.

What dock labour do they use in England?

They use Black labour and Indian labour, as well as White labour, as the hon. member should know. The hon. the Minister interjected yesterday about the Cape Town City Council. He said it was one of the councils he would give credit to for employing Coloured labour. Sir, that has always been their policy, but I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the City Engineer reported to the Council that there was a lack of Coloured labour and he asked the Council to employ Africans. It was suggested that 290 Africans be employed.

Whether the Minister ever granted the permit I do not know, but there is evidence in Cape Town of a shortage of Coloured labour at the present moment. There are certain suburbs in Cape Town where the streets used to be cleaned at least once a week and at present they have not been cleaned for a fortnight. That is the position. The labour is not there. The hon. the Minister must not tell us that the City Council of Cape Town is not highly mechanized. It is probably one of the few councils in this country that is mechanized to a very high degree. They cannot find the Coloured labour.

The streets are no dirtier now than they were ten years ago.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration told us this afternoon that he had had interviews with farming deputations who came to see him about the ticklish problem of farm labour. He says that once he stated the Government’s policy to these farmers they were satisfied.

I wonder, Sir. I am very certain that these deputations went away feeling highly frustrated and feeling that they would just have to accept the Government’s policy. When an industrialist in the Western Cape wants to apply for Bantu labour, I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of the process he has to go through. He has to fill in a form and it takes between ten and 12 days before he gets a reply as to whether he can have Bantu labour or not. As a result, people have become frustrated. We know that in Cape Town one large racing stable intends to move to Durban. Another one will follow for the simple reason that they just cannot get the Bantu labour.

They decided on that before I said a word.

You are letting us into a secret. That is not the owner’s statement in the Press.

Sir, how can one run a business in this frustrating fashion? We hear much about productivity. There have been conferences about it. We have heard about how to work harder, produce more, reduce prices, etc., to beat the inflation bogey. How can one tie this in with the Government’s policy of political economy? I have often wondered whether there is a link between the Minister of Bantu Administration, the Department of Finance and the Department of Commerce and Industries, because the Minister of Bantu Administration has taken over the whole responsibility in this country for the location of industries and other matters. One cannot locate an industry unless one gets the permission of that hon. Minister. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council must have great difficulty in forecasting the economic growth of this country when they have a minister such as the Minister of Bantu Administration. I think the hon. the Minister should be one of the kingpins on that council. The Minister may laugh about it. I do not know whether he has ever been a businessman, but he was quite happy about stopping industry in Epping in the Western Cape. He said that he would do it again.

We are going to remove your garage to Riemvasmaak.

That suits me. If the hon. the Minister is still a customer of mine, I do not mind. He can move me wherever he likes, but he will not move me out of Salt River. This Minister has become a virtual dictator. I would say that he is a nigger in the inflation woodpile. If the hon. the Minister of Finance wants to find where his trouble lies, he must look just behind him. The Ministers must realize that Bantu labour in this country has been the key to the economic success of South Africa. Without it we cannot do anything. The large industries, the gold mines, the diamond mines and the Railways have all prospered as a result of having a supply of Bantu labour; I do not say a free supply, but an adequate supply of Bantu labour.

Why look at me all the time?

Because I am thinking about those speeches that you are going to make in Worcester. It is probable that the Minister or the Deputy Minister does not understand the Western Cape, but the new Minister of Economic Affairs has lent his support to the Western Cape development. He is hoping that it will go ahead, but how can it go ahead with a policy such as the one enunciated by the Government at the present moment. It is interesting to hear what Professor Cilliers said about it. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has read his report. Professor Cilliers is the professor of sociology at Stellenbosch University. He was addressing a meeting of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in Malmesbury on the 13th March, 1963. He warned that it would have to be gradual, if at all. He quoted some interesting figures. The report states:

He said that the whole scheme was doomed to failure unless we had the co-operation of both the farmers and of the industrialists. He said that one would have to remove something like 120,000 workers. In regard to an exchange basis, he said:

I think Professor Cilliers’ conclusions were interesting. We have heard all about the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. I should like to repeat his conclusions. I should like to make them a challenge. Let us accept it. It is Government policy. The Minister says that they are going to carry it out. The Minister of Bantu Administration should talk to his colleague, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and declare a Coloured border area in the Western Cape. Let us carry out that policy. Let us see the Government replace this labour with Coloured labour. We cannot just remove labour from one area without replacing it. I should like to challenge the Government now to do just that, namely to remove Coloured labour from other parts of the Republic and bring them into the Western Cape and declare the Western Cape as a Coloured border area. Let the Western Cape have the same facilities as the Bantu border areas. Let us have those facilities as far as Railway rates, etc., are concerned. That is the challenge I make to the Government. If that is not done the Government has failed. They can then forget about removing the Bantu from the Western Cape.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has no grasp whatsoever of one of the major questions in South Africa as far as labour matters are concerned. To-day I shall try to teach him and the Leader of the Opposition one lesson, and I hope they will remember it. South Africa—and more specifically after what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said yesterday—is at present divided into two spheres as far as the present discussion on industries is concerned. The industrialist is at all times quite free to decide for himself which of those two spheres he will choose. If Bantu labour is the key to economic prosperity in South Africa, as the hon. members allege, then those potential industrialists have no reason to refuse, if that is their attitude, to make their choice to their own advantage and to put their skill and ability and financial investments into the border industries. If it is an important key to such tremendous advantages, surely they have an open field there where they can get unlimited numbers of Bantu labourers and where more water is available than in the present areas, where the demand is so great. Then there are the white areas, but despite the fact that in the white areas Government policy and legislation are aimed at making those industries more and more white, does the hon. member not find it strange that despite this key of which he speaks, namely cheap Bantu labour, is rejected in favour of those areas where it is virtually a prerequisite that white labour should be used? The hon. gentlemen should work that out themselves and then they will see that until now they have been wide off the mark.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because many of the matters raised by him are of an administrative nature. I want to come to the policy question. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a two-pronged attack on the Government, and to me it was something new to see him take one issue, for the first time in his career as Leader of the Opposition, and try to pursue it to its conclusion, although he failed hopelessly in doing so. At least he did not try to scrape together a bunch of matters and to build a case on them, as he did in the past. The attack made yesterday by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, was firstly that he was opposed to the decentralization of industries. Then, in his second attack, he advocated the unrestricted admission of Bantu labour to white areas.

Nonsense!

Here I have the amendment of the hon. the Leader, and since there is such a strong reaction on the part of the Opposition, I shall read the second part of his amendment—

He is saying, even as regards those in the Bantu homelands, that unless there is work for them in their homeland, as he sees it, is in the white area. The motion continues—

Before dealing with the essentials of this twopronged attack, I just want to point out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be a great help to us as the Leader of the Opposition if he will use the same language that he used here to-day when he speaks at meetings in the rural areas, such as that held in Prieska. That would enable us to evaluate the attack made by him on the Government. But if he makes a point against the Government at Prieska while his points against the Government in this House are the opposite, it becomes very difficult for the Government to decide what the Leader of the Opposition is criticizing. We must therefore remember that we should also see his entire attack against the background of what has now become a hardy annual as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned. The hon. member for Yeoville has made it his annual task to allege in this House that the influx to the industrial areas is increasing. From Government side it is pointed out to him year after year that the increase in the number of Bantu in those white areas is attributable to the fact that those industries have grown. In reply to hon. members it is then pointed out that the ratio has always improved, and not deteriorated. But despite that they come back the next year with the same attack and the same question, with the result that they are virtually wasting our time, and instead of discussing matters on their merits, they come back once again and state the case which they misrepresented the previous year and which the Government side presented correctly. Then we reply, and as soon as it has been given they always close the debate and run away from the entire situation.

Now it would be most interesting to know what the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and his party would be if in this session there is a realization—and I hope there will be—of what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration referred to yesterday, namely that industrialists and potential industrialists will be restrained as far as their labour force is concerned. For example, if they wanted to establish a new industry on the Witwatersrand or in Pretoria or elsewhere, they would have to complete a form to state how many labourers they would employ, how many Whites and how many Bantu, where those people would live, how much water and electricity they would need and what transport facilities they would need. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the Opposition when such things are brought about by way of legislation. If the pleas made at the negotiations— which have always taken place on a high level and at which the industries were urged to try to adapt themselves to the population strength of South Africa and the relations between White and Black—have fallen upon deaf ears in the case of a large number of industrialists, and if a large number of industrialists are engaged in disrupting our position on the Witwatersrand and Pretoria from time to time as regards housing, labour matters and transport, etc., then we are forced to take statutory powers to attain those objects. Now I want to say that if those are put into operation, I do not think we will have a repetition in future years of the story told by the hon. member for Yeoville, that the number of Bantu in the white industries is increasing continually. I say that is again contrary to the facts.

The facts prove the very opposite, although matters are not yet quite the way we want them. Yesterday we heard the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education tell the House about actual cases of industrialists who were compelled to accept the responsibility for housing their workers and then discovered immediately that they could make do with far fewer Bantu labourers than they would need if the city council or some other concern provided their housing. It is true that there will be that sobering influence on industries that are getting completely out of hand to-day, something which I, for my part, want to say no orderly community or state or society can tolerate any longer, because the Leader of the Opposition encourages and asks the Bantu in the Bantu homelands to leave their areas and to stream to the white areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should realize that the consequences of his plea would mean a regression to those years when the National Party came into power and when those notorious shanty-towns existed on the Witwatersrand, creating an absolutely uncontrollable situation. How we had to plead here to have those chaotic conditions on the Witwatersrand cleared up!

We know how the late Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Native Affairs, had to struggle and fight here against the greatest resistance this House had ever known on the part of the opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now had a rest, he has regained his breath, and now he comes along with the violent attack he made yesterday. He pleaded that for the sake of eyewash those businesses should get a minor condition here and there, such as those I have just read, namely that the Government should not regard the progress of those industries. Seeing that the hon. gentleman had the facts at his disposal and that he brought this material accusation against the Government, one would at least have thought he would be fair enough to tell this House where, in what place and in respect of which industry, industries were disrupted as a result of these control measures of the Government. He could not give one example. In his speech he also suggested that we on this side should prove by means of figures that the reversal would be reached in 1978.

Did you not say that?

No, I did not; I say it will be even sooner. Next year the hon. member will sing a different tune, in contrast with the one that he and other hon. members on that side sang in the past, when these measures, which I have in mind and which I trust will come, are introduced. In proving such things by means of figures, surely one should prove to what extent the change will take place, or else what meaning would the figures have? The great attack the hon. member made on the Government yesterday was that we on this side had never proved to him that the reversal would come in that year. I cannot understand his attitude, Mr. Speaker. Surely the hon. gentleman is a practical farmer and knows that one does not count a chicken before it is hatched or a calf before it is born. But he expects us to anticipate that year through figures regarding a matter of policy which has so many obstacles to overcome. In that respect the hon. gentleman is a most unpractical politician, if he expects us to do that, and this side will most certainly not associate itself with the hon. gentleman’s attitude.

Why will the turning point not be in the year 1970?

We are not prepared to confine ourselves to a specific date. As matters develop from time to time, I feel justified in saying to-day that we shall not wait until that year, but that the reversal for which we aim will come long before 1978. Next year the hon. member will be thoroughly convinced of that. The hon. member should remember that, just as in the case of our battle against inflation, the Government has to deal with foolhardy powers in the industrial field as well. Those powers use and abuse their economic strength as an obstacle in the course of such policy matters. That must be combated continually.

I think that as far as this matter is concerned, we shall exceed the wildest expectations. We shall succeed in presenting a clear image, an image which will become clearer and clearer, and after the establishment of such statutory powers industrialists will have no more difficulties because the choice of a factory site will be exclusively in their hands. If it is so advantageous—as the hon. member alleged—then the land is there and they can also employ 100 percent Bantu labour. But if that is not the case, on which we insist and which we make an absolute requirement, then we shall not allow our white areas to blacken more and more.

The actual reason why I rose was to come back to the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Hillbrow in connection with certain aspects of our mining industry. Apparently the hon. member has a very thorough knowledge of the financial aspect of our mining industry, and he was able to describe certain things to us. But if the hon. member describes a black horse with a white spot on its head and fails to mention the white spot, then he is not quite accurate. Amongst other things the hon. member made the important statement in this House that the mining industry was at the moment exhausting all the rich mines. Five percent of the mines, i.e. the very rich group, get away with all those benefits. According to him the rest of the mines are marginal mines, mines that are dependent upon and that can make a living only as a result of Government concessions. Amongst other things the hon. member pleaded for subsidies for mines already in existence. The hon. member also pleaded for reorientation of labour matters on the mines, and that the Chamber of Mines should make a very sincere attempt to do certain things, things which this Government has never accepted and never will accept.

There is a certain aspect I want to bring to the attention of the hon. member, however, and when he deals with the mining industry again, I want him to bear this aspect in mind as well. Between the profit-making mines and the non-profit-making mines—which are called marginal mines—there is a world of difference as regards the respective policies laid down. The mine directors concerned decide whether a mine is a profitable mine or whether it is a marginal mine. Why is that so, Mr. Speaker? The reason is as follows. The marginal mines receive ample tax concessions. They also receive ample concessions as regards their working costs. What is the result of that? Once they are regarded as marginal mines, the working costs of those mines are forced up systematically and deliberately, on instructions. The reason for that is that they must not make a profit because that is not the source of the share-holder’s profit. In this respect I want to say something of a serious nature, but I think it is high time it was said. The directors simply decide that the mines must not be profitable. They do not want the mines to show a profit because they make their profit from the materials which are pumped into the mines day by day. They make profits from cement, from timber, from hardware, from all the wares they deliver. That is the reason, Sir, why one hears Anglo this and Anglo that.

If Anglo does not make its profits from marginal mines, it makes it from cement, etc. There it makes all its profits on materials which are so to speak thrown away in the gold mines. That is an aspect which should be investigated. The hon. member should bear that aspect in mind. If 5 percent of the mines are profitable while the rest are only marginal mines, it is a very serious matter. It then becomes time for us to determine to what extent the directorates of the profit-making mines have a say in the non-profit-making mines as well, and to what extent they have an interest in the manufacture of cement and in supplying timber and all the other materials pumped into those mines. That is an aspect the hon. member, who has made such an intensive study of the mining industry, should also have presented to this House. Because it is only then that we shall get a correct picture of our mining industry. The mining industry is used all the time for propaganda purposes, in order to gain some sympathy for that coterie which makes the profits. The difficulties and so-called non-profit-making circumstances of the other mines are exploited in the fashion I have just described.

If there is one matter in South Africa that should be investigated it is this one, because for my part I want to say that the gentlemen advising the Government in connection with taxes do not always know about those tricks of the mining trade. Because in those non-profit-making mines they enjoy the benefits of the subsidy and of all kinds of concessions, and then they enjoy the advantage of the profits they make. If the question of working costs is taken into review, Mr. Speaker, it will become clearer to you what I mean. If one takes the working costs per ton in those profitable mines and compares them with the marginal mines, one will soon see what is wrong. Why are the working costs of the highly profitable mines lower than the working costs of the marginal mines? Let hon. members of the Opposition, who are so fond of pleading for subsidies in season and out of season, explain that to us. Let them tell the House these things, and then you will see that there are things happening in the mining industry which South Africa cannot tolerate any longer. And is it not the mining industry which is influencing other industries in South Africa to speak the way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in this debate? Is it not the mining industry which is in many respects exerting the stranglehold of credit provision on those subsidized industries, and which is dictating to them that they should offer as much resistence as possible to the Government’s influx control policy as far as the Bantu are concerned? Are they not behind that?

I submit that they are in fact behind that. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us, through the next speaker on that side, what their attitude is as regards the question of absolute control on a statutory basis over labour questions on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria, and what their attitude is as regards housing. Will they support the Government in its policy that every future industrialist should also be responsible for housing his workers? If one is frivolous, one always receives a fair response from the Opposition, but when one tries to point out to them what is wrong in the economy in respect of which they always act so protectively in this House, then that side is silent. I want to express the hope that hon. members on that side will adopt a new pattern. In the past they had a more difficult part to play here; they had to act here, not as the official South African Opposition, no, they always had to act on behalf of the U.N. or on behalf of the British Government. Seven years ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acted here on behalf of Ghana. It is my hope that in view of the development that has taken place in South Africa, in view of South Africa’s enhanced status, the Opposition will now adopt a new course. Sir, all these issues which were so clouded in the past arose from the fact that we were not independent. The solution to our colour problem on the highest possible level had always been prejudiced and adversely influenced by the fact that we were a member of the Commonwealth. As a result of the fact that we were not an independent republic, we were always shackled. But some years ago we became a republic, and we cannot but congratulate the Government on the tremendous progress it has made in implementing its policy of separate development.

When the hon. member for Krugersdorp rose, he told us that he was going to teach my Leader a lesson on labour matters. I found that somewhat funny, coming from that hon. member. It is years since the hon. member resigned from the Labour Party, but he is still poking his nose into mineworkers’ affairs every so often. One would think he should know something about labour matters. But if he knows something about labour—he is a senior member of that Party—why is he not on the Government benches? The Government is in great need of such a man. The hon. member talked so much nonsense that it is no wonder his colleague the hon. member for Carletonville was laughing at him and eventually argued with him about his speech. Nor do the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Brakpan agree with him.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp said that my Leader advocated unrestrained admission of Bantu to the white areas.

Well, that is true.

He said that my Leader encouraged the Bantu to leave their homelands and to move to the white areas. Surely the hon. member knows that is not true, and yet he said that. Before leaving that hon. member I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister of Finance that the speech just made by the hon. member is aimed at frustrating the hon. the Minister’s plea for a higher gold price.

Why?

Because he does not know what he is talking about. Mr. Speaker, the late General Smuts was known throughout the world and will always be known as “General”, although he later became a Field Marshall, because he achieved his greatest fame as a general. We have always thought the hon. member for Vereeniging would always be known as the hon. member for Vereeniging, because in his capacity as member for Vereeniging he talked some of the greatest nonsense of his career. There must be few members who talked so much nonsense and advanced so few constructive arguments over a period of so many years. Now that he has been promoted, he got his second and third wind all at once, and now he is excelling himself. I have no doubt that from the way he is acting now he will be known in history as the Deputy Minister of the century.

You are not the only one to think that.

He will always be known as the immortal and widely-loved Churchill of South Africa. But speaking of the great men of other countries, I just want to point out that the make and break methods applied here by him remind one rather more of Churchill’s greatest enemy, i.e. Hitler. The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to make and break everything by force; he simply cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker, most of the arguments advanced yesterday by the hon. the Deputy Minister have already been responded to, but there are one or two on which I should also like to say something. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us that there was a terrible wastage of Bantu labour in South Africa. I think we can agree with him, but what has his Government done to eliminate the wastage of unskilled labour? What have they done to train those people properly?

A great deal.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says they have done a great deal. What have they done? They are wasting even more skilled labour through their senseless regulations, for what is happening? A Bantu worker comes to the white areas; he works some months until he knows the work well, and then he has to return to his own area and a new worker has to be trained. Is that not a terrible waste of labour? [Interjection.] I am speaking of the Bantu workers. Yesterday the Deputy Minister told us how he had shown the manufacturers, the businessmen and the farmers how to get along with less Bantu labour, and he said that they were grateful for that. If that is true, he has missed his vocation. He should practice as an efficiency expert.

But he is one.

If the businessmen of South Africa discover how good he is in that respect, I wonder whether they will not try to steal him from the Cabinet, as the farmers are now stealing one another’s labourers. That will be a great loss!

The Deputy Minister does not want to bury the wonderful year 1978, and then the hon. member for Krugersdorp came along and said it would be even sooner. I just want to ask that hon. member, if it is true that the Bantu will have to return, who will work in the mines, which he wants to nationalize? That is the kind of talk we hear, and there is no reply.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has devoted himself to reducing the Bantu in the Western Cape, and he told us how wonderful things were in the brick manufacturing industry, how they were making do with much fewer Bantu. But is it not that very industry which is at present experiencing a great shortage of bricks. That shows how he is disrupting the industry from which he removes the Bantu, and that is only where he started. We must now prepare ourselves for the fact that the further he goes, the more disruption he will cause. [Interjections.] The first one he tackled has been disrupted. I fear the Deputy Minister will yet cause the Nationalist Party many headaches. No wonder some of them are telling us that they suspect him of being a United Party fifth columnist among them.

I also want to address a few words to the hon. member for Namaqualand. As far as nonsense is concerned, he is not far behind the Deputy Minister. I just want to deal with two of the matters he raised here to-day. The first is that he told us how long and how hard the Nationalist Party had to work to clear up the mess they inherited in 1948, such as slums. I just want to ask him: If his Party had been engaged in a war for six years, and its best men had been away during the war time, what would it have been like then? Then he raised a second point, and I am sure he did not know what he was talking about. He told us how hard his Party had to work to build up the Defence Force. He may not be aware of it, but after the war, until 1948, there was a sound Defence Force, and for twelve years that Government did nothing but break down that Force. Of course they now have to work hard to build it up again, and of course it will now cost more. No, the hon. member should not talk about things he knows nothing about. If the hon. member had come from a constituency like Brits and had then talked such rubbish it would have been understandable, but he comes from Namaqualand and there one expects diamonds, but look what we are getting. Only bitter apples and bitter melons.

The Government claims to have a very good policy. What we on this side should like, is to see them make an effort to carry out that policy. They should not merely talk about it; they should show us results. They should not merely talk about what will happen in 1978. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister merely disrupts everything. There is a difference between disruption and implementing a policy. Let us see what they can do. Even if it is ten years late, let them start with the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission. Then there may be some progress. But all they do is a bit here and a bit there, without touching the most important points in that report. I fear that in due course economic conditions will force them to give effect to those recommendations.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration told us that he envisaged a ratio of one and less Black to one White in the large metropolitan areas. To me it seems so unfair that that ratio should be applied in Cape Town and Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg, but only eight miles outside Pretoria there is no restriction and there may be hundreds.

But they do not live there.

No, they live just next door. The same applies to the so-called border industries. That is also in White South Africa. At present, by the norm of the Minister, the ratio in Johannesburg is out of all proportion and one wonders how they are going to try to correct that. It seems to me there will only be one way, and that is for them to proclaim Sowetho a homeland, and then their problem on the Rand will be solved. Every night numerous trains leave for the homelands, but the problem will remain just the same. Whether it is near Johannesburg or on the borders, the problem remains the same No wonder, if one has such a policy and tries to carry it out, that the Minister should try all those tricks to bluff the voters into thinking that it is actually happening when it is not happening. They try to bluff the public into thinking that there is such a thing as separate development, when it is not true. They try to bluff the public into thinking that they are implementing it, when they are not doing that. That is our complaint. In respect of this so-called policy of theirs, on which they have so much to say, it is our complaint that they are making no effort to make it work in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I am really very sorry that the hon. member for North Rand has talked his Leader out of the House because I actually wanted to speak to his Leader. Just in passing I want to say to the hon. member for North Rand that he made me feel a little jealous here this afternoon. He called my colleague the Deputy Minister of the century. I had thought that there might perhaps be a chance for me too! I think I will go one better than my colleague. I am going to propose a reduction of at least 10 percent in Bantu labour, and then I will surpass him. The hon. member will forgive me if I do not spend too much time on him. I do not think he expects me to do so either. I just want to tell the hon. member in passing that if he thinks that we are going to make a homeland of Sowetho he really has no notion at all of what a homeland is. A homeland is an area which is being developed for one of the ethnic groups so that they may make their national home there. I now want to ask him whether he can place the Tswanas or the Vendas or some ethnic group or other in Sowetho. You see, Sir, that I would find myself involved in these trivialities if I were to react to that hon. member. I think I should prefer to leave it at that. That is also what the hon. member expects.

Neither am I going to discuss this afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s plea for more Bantu labour, not only for the Western Cape but for the entire economy of South Africa. Sir, we have on previous occasions heard about the homeopathic pill. Apparently that pill is efficacious in the treatment of any disease. I sat here yesterday afternoon listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asked for more Bantu labour, particularly in the Western Cape. That labour is supposed to solve the economic problems of the Western Cape. It must strengthen the Western Cape economically. It must solve the problems being experienced in regard to agriculture and the increased prices of land. It must solve problems which may perhaps be created if Britain enters the European Common Market. Just as that homeopathic pill does, there is not a disease we suffer from which could not be cured if only we could have more Bantu labour in the Cape. In addition we are attacked for supposedly allowing migratory labour here. I am now going to do the hon. member for North Rand the honour of referring to him again. When he spoke about migrant labour he said, “What foolishness!” We allow migrant labour to take place, but as soon as that labourer has learnt something he has to return again. In other words, he wants them to be permanently settled here. Now we have heard what the United Party’s point of departure is, namely that the Bantu must be permanently settled in the white areas, not only on a basis of migratory labour, but also on a family basis. There is not one of them who will deny this. Accusations are being made against us to the effect that we are disrupting the entire family life of the Bantu and therefore doing them an injustice. They even went so far as to ram Sinodal resolutions down our throats. We must therefore conclude from the United Party that more Black labour will solve all the difficulties. They want more Bantu women and a better family life for the Bantu here in White South Africa. It is then taking amiss of us when we place this process of making White South Africa Black, which the United Party advocates, and which it also advocates as its policy in season and out, before the electorate of South Africa and say to them that our policy is aimed at keeping White South Africa White in a country where the White man will retain his control. [Interjections.] That hon. member is shaking his head.

Order! The hon. member is asking whether he may put a question.

Yes, but he must make sure he asks a better question that the speech he made.

I should like to know from the Deputy Minister what his church says in regard to migratory labour?

The hon. member wants to know from me what my church says about

migratory labour. I am not dealing with what my church has to say about it. What I am dealing with here is what can safeguard the future of the Whites in South Africa.

Does the church have nothing to do with that?

My church did not object to it. I do not know to what denomination that hon. member belongs or whether his church objects to it. I have not yet noticed that my church objects to it. The hon. member will not distract me in that way.

Before I leave this point I just want, in passing, to come for a moment to the hon. member for Salt River. I was amazed when I sat here listening to the hon. member for Salt River, who asked us in such a superior way whether we were not aware that we could not use the Coloureds as dock-workers. He went on to mention quite a number of other types of work which the Coloureds could not do and for which Bantu were specifically required. I now want to ask him which people are used in the harbours of other countries such as America, Britain, Japan and China. How do they load their ships? [Interjections.] No, the hon. member can furnish me with a reply on some other day after he has first considered this matter. It will really be a tragic day for South Africa if the entire nation had to adopt the attitude which the United Party adopts, i.e. that there is certain work in South Africa which will just have to stand still and which it will not be possible to do if there are no Bantu to do it. A lady told me the other day that a neighbour of hers had two little children. She asked how she was supposed to bring them up if she did not have a Bantu woman to help her. If we had to adopt the point of departure of the United Party, namely that nothing can continue without Bantu labour, and that our population cannot even multiply without Bantu labour, it would be a bad and fatal day for South Africa. I had to remind that woman of the fact that she could get a Bantu woman to assist her in raising her little children. However, she must at least expect that that Bantu woman, during the time she is here, will surely bring more than just two little children into the world, and that she is not going to need any help in raising them. In terms of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act of 1945 those children are inhabitants who qualify to remain here in future. [Interjections.] That hon. member will have an opportunity of speaking. He was afraid to speak yesterday.

Did you have a Bantu nurse?

Did you have one? [Interjections.] I do not want to say that Bantu labour is not useful, nor that we cannot use it, nor that the Bantu should not sell their manpower, but if the Whites in South Africa are going to become so dependent on Black labour that they cannot bring about any more development I really do not see any future for the Whites in South Africa.

I just want to dwell for a moment on what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said yesterday afternoon when he referred to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler of a speech which I made at the East London Congress last year on the 2nd November. I maintained that I could not have been reported in the way the hon. member claimed. The hon. member was kind enough to hand over to me a clipping from Die Transvaler of 3rd November. I notice in this newspaper that I was in fact reported as he claimed I had been.

Beg his pardon.

No, I still think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout owes me an apology. He wanted to create the impression here that I had supposedly said that the Transvaal would be developed in such a way as to absorb the entire Xhosa population, in other words that even those Xhosa living in the Ciskei would be absorbed into the Transkei. Now if they were to read for themselves this report as it appeared in Die Transvaler, and I am not going to spend much time on this matter, hon. members would see what I mean. I shall just read this extract (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, surely everybody knows that there are no Vendas, Tswanas, Shangaans or Sothos living in the Ciskei. Everybody knows that the Xhosas are living in the Ciskei and that the Ciskei will be consolidated for the Xhosas. The hon. member therefore missed altogether the purpose I was trying to express. But now he comes forward here with these words to which I take exception:

that means of course the Transkei and the Ciskei—

Now the hon. member, by wresting these few words of mine from their context, wants to create the impression here that what I meant was that the entire Xhosa nation should live in the Transkei only. I do not think there is any other person who, upon reading the entire report, would have come under that false impression. But so much for the congress of the National Party of the Cape in East London last year. It was followed closely by another congress in East London, the Congress of the United Party.

It was much bigger than yours was.

Yes, so I understand. Now I also want to link that to the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made yesterday afternoon and in which he told us that he was going to discuss their policy. He said that their policy was a federative approach without domination. I then strained my ears to hear how that federative policy without domination was going to work. The only conclusion to which I could come was that this federative approach had to be the offspring, and I do not know whether it is the illegitimate offspring of the old Senate plan, the defunct race federation plan of the United Party. The hon. member said that they had had a very good congress. Yes, that is what I read in the Rand Daily Mail of 18th November, where it was stated—

They then go on to say—

Now I want to read this little extract which is of importance in this regard:

One can continue in this vein. It was a very interesting congress and that is why we listened with interest here to the no-confidence debate and to this debate. All that we got was this kind of criticism which we heard here this afternoon from the hon. member for North Rand who wanted to know when we were going to implement our policy. When we are in the process of implementing that policy he states that we are disrupting the economy of South Africa. The newspapers I quoted from are not kindly-disposed towards the National Party. They are not newspapers which support our policy. They are newspapers which readily support the United Party’s policy. They are newspapers who want to support them at any election and who are dependent on gaining a handful of votes in order to win another constituency here and there. A few days later I read the following in the Evening Post:

I cannot agree with them there. The United Party does try something new from time to time, but it simply does not succeed. But why should they listen to me; let them listen rather to the Press which supports them.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton for one can see that she has at least progressed so far now that the United Party is borrowing from her as well.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker,

I am glad to see that the hon. member for Orange Grove is now beginning to show signs of life. Perhaps he would explain this policy which I, the voting public as well as the Press, would so much like to know more about because it is surely the new approach, it is that new something which they are trying. That is what they are going to woo the voting public with. They have decided that they are going to woo them here at Worcester. They are even going to put forward a candidate in Worcester and we should like to know in advance how they are going to Woo the voters in Worcester. Perhaps the hon. member can inform us. Unfortunately I shall have to omit many quotations from this because we want to know more about this new policy. The Sunday Times states under this headline, “Race federation abandoned in favour of territorial federation —Major changes in United Party policy”. These are all good things which were born out of the congresses. In the Sunday Times of 4th December, a few days later, a report appeared with a very fine photo of the hon. member for Yeoville. He is actually the expert in the field of race federation planning, or am I wrong in terming it race federation, since it is being alleged that this concept is already defunct? The hon. member granted an interview to the Sunday Times and explained this policy to them. He said—

Mr. Speaker, we would like more information about these matters. This is supposed to be the policy which the United Party should have put to us, and the closest we got to that, was yesterday afternoon when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us that their policy was a federative one.

Do you not have something else out of The Observer?

Do you also belong to that group? The hon. member must not try and distract me in that way. I do not know whether or not The Observer has to explain their race federation policy to them. I know nothing about that. I am not a very regular reader of The Observer. I notice, however, that the hon. member has recently become a very regular reader of that publication. But we shall let the matter rest there.

Mr. Speaker, I—and the voting public of South Africa—would like to know about this new policy with which the United Party is now coming forward, the new policy with which they are going to get the voters onto their side. We want to learn more about the new planning which made their congresses in East London and in other places this year such a great success. I hope and trust that we shall hear more about that.

What is this new policy? Tell us about it.

We ourselves want to find out from the United Party what this policy is. Now the hon. member is asking me to explain his party’s policy. The hon. member puts me in mind of two U.P. members in the Somerset East constituency who were discussing their race federation policy before the last election. The one said to the other: “Can you explain our race federation policy to me?” to which the other one replied: “No, I do not understand it very well. The other day I questioned Andres Cilliers, An-dries Vosloo’s opponent about it, and he told me that he did not understand the policy very well either. We then decided to ask Sir De Villiers Graaff, but he told me that he did not understand it very well. But anyway Dr. Ver-woerd understands the policy very well. He can explain it.” That is precisely what the hon. member wants from me—he wants me to explain his party’s policy. That is the policy about which we should like to hear more ourselves. I have here a clipping which deals with what the hon. member for Hillbrow said, under the heading: “Federation is United Party Policy.” Is it necessary for me to read it out, or shall I leave it to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who to my way of thinking always speaks so well, to explain this policy as he sees it to us in his next speech? He can tell us about the new approach, the new policy, as he proposed it at the congresses. [Interjections.] No, I think the hon. member must allow me to make my speech in my own way and to go on with the matters which I got up to deal with. I have now made this request to the United Party. I hope it has not fallen on deaf ears. If there are hon. members on the opposite side, such as the hon. members for Transkei and North Rand for example, who are not acquainted with the policy, then surely they have experts to inform them and they must not come and ask me to explain that policy to them.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also spoke about the consolidation of Bantu areas yesterday afternoon. He said that the United Party was in favour of the Bantu areas being consolidated. The hon. member reproached us with consolidating the Bantu areas too slowly. Perhaps one could agree with him. But if one glances at the records of the various parties— I do not have the time at my disposal now to go into this, but I promise the United Party that I shall do so in a future speech—ther the National Party Government has nothing to be ashamed about as far as the consolidation of Bantu areas is concerned. In fact, we have made more rapid progress in this regard than has the United Party. Nevertheless, I am glad to have received this admisson from the hon. member, namely that the United Party is also in favour of the consolidation of the Bantu areas. I now want to ask the United Party this: If they are in earnest about the Bantu areas being consolidated then they must put an end to this suspicion-mongering which they have been practising all these years. Where land is being purchased to consolidate White areas, where consolidation is taking place, or where land is being purchased in order to clear up Black spots, the United Party takes delight in sowing suspicion against the Nationalist Party Government and the Trust.

It is not necessary to sow suspicion—the suspicion is there.

There is the admission. How did the suspicion arise? It arose because it was created by the United Party. One day they are congratulating themselves that they were the originators of the 1936 Act, but on the next, when it comes to the implementation of that Act, then they fail to acknowledge that legislation and say: “Look how this Government is taking over the White man’s land for occupation by the Black man”. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, how the former member for King William’s Town stood up here in this House and attacked this side of the House by saying that it was this Government who was handing over the precious soil of South Africa to the “destroyers of ground,” as he said.

I want to return to the congress which was held in East London. What about the suspicions which were sowed there? The hon. members who were present know what I am referring to. Suspicion was sown there in regard to the survival of East London in the White corridor.

Is East London going to survive?

If the United Party should come into power then I have very little hope for its survival. Fortunately that will not happen, and that is why I think I am justified in stating here to-day that it will survive as a White area as long as the National Government remains in power. I hope that reply satisfies the hon. member. Suspicion was sown by no less a person than Mr. J. C. V. Hunt, a member of the East London City Council. Does the hon. member know this person.

Yes.

If the hon. member of the City Council is going to tell them that the Government is taking options on farms in the White corridor, and he warns them that the Transkei’s borders will perhaps be extended across the Kei river, or that the Ciskei will encircle East London, then he tells them that that is the reason why there are no possibilities for industrial development in East London. When has East London developed more industries than it has in the recent past? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Deputy Minister got up to reply we certainly expected a detailed explanation of the Government’s approach, and particularly of the charges which have been made by my hon. Leader. But what happened? We merely got a set of newspaper cuttings, which were referred to, which had no bearing on the particular motion which is before the House…

Nor on the amendment.

… nor on the amendment which has been moved by us. He raised a number of issues; he referred to a number of points to which I will return, but I want to put it in the correct perspective. The hon. member for Krugersdorp, completely against the general area in which this debate takes place, decided to introduce the gold mining industry. I will have occasion later on to reply to the particular challenge which he has made. I really do not know what particular function the hon. member for Krugersdorp had in the mining industry but he displayed great ignorance of the management of a mine. He certainly has no idea of the vital Government functions which are performed by officials like the Government Mining Engineer. I can only come to the conclusion that he never had anything to do with the management of the mines. Perhaps he never rose above the collar of a shaft.

He was a gravedigger.

Sir, what is symptomatic of his whole approach is his reference to the issue of decentralization; this is where I think we should start. He starts off by saying that this side of the House is against decentralization. We have never said anything of the kind. But, Sir, when we look at the issue of decentralization of industries there are certain things of which we must be aware. Why do you decentralize? You do so in the first instance for strategic reasons. The great powers, particularly where there is real danger of atomic warfare, are aware of this. It is held by most of the military strategists that it was this particular fact that lead Mr. Khrushchev some while back to begin to make friendly overtures to the Western world and to evolve his new policy of peaceful co-existence, because there was the realization that in Russia, in contrast to America, strategic industries were sited in a few well-defined areas. They were hence vulnerable to atomic attack. The military reasons for decentralization therefore are clearly established.

But you also decentralize very often for economic reasons. Quite clearly, when your centralization gets beyond a certain point then diseconomies arise in the form of bottlenecks on transportation systems and all sorts of other things. Very often attention is drawn to the fact that research which has been done has shown that the social costs of putting a worker in industry rise steeply as your city increases in size. But this is off-set by many other factors. There are certain disadvantages which follow from decentralization and these have been completely overlooked in this debate. For example, centralization of industry gives you a greater concentration of demand for goods and services and hence the distribution costs of those goods and services are lower. But the whole question of specialization is also greatly facilitated. What is more, the task of management is very much easier when there is centralization. It is no mere coincidence that the countries that have the highest productivity rate and the lowest production costs happen to be America, West Germany and Japan where they have the greatest degree of centralization of industry. But, Sir, we must also see it against this particular feature: In South Africa, although there is clustering of industry in certain areas, we do have a great degree of decentralization because these areas are widely dispersed. For example, between the Cape and the Witwatersrand there is a distance of almost 1,000 miles. Certainly South Africa has at this stage as great a degree of decentralization of industry as Brazil has or the Argentine, which are at comparable states of industrialization.

The hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday also made great play of the fact that in Britain they succeeded in decentralizing and in uplifting some of the depressed areas. But what he did not indicate is that in Britain you had the infra-structure which was necessary, the services were there. Why did he not tell us about the south of Italy, where over many years they have had a concentrated attack on the problem, and attempt to decentralize industry to the south of Italy—and have they had any success?

Mr. Speaker, when you think of decentralization, particularly in our context, then it might also have sociological and political implications, and it is particularly in this context that we must view it. And hence we come up against the question of border areas. We are not against border areas as such but we want to draw attention to the economic features which are involved in this border area scheme. Sir, what is claimed for this border area scheme? What does the Government say? They say that the border area scheme will stimulate industrialization of the Bantu homelands themselves, because there will be a spillover effect. But in practice it will work in exactly the opposite way, it will in all probability retard economic development within the Bantu homelands because instead of having a spill-over effect there will be leaching effect. You are draining away the skills which are in the homelands and you are putting them in the border areas.

It is held also that the border area scheme is primarily designed to show that integration in the economic setting can be stopped. But this works in exactly the opposite way. Why are we taking the factories to the Bantu homelands? Precisely because they have the labour. Do we not in these border areas do away with some of the job reservation provisions? It is therefore not a question of stopping integration; it intensifies integration. It shows precisely how dependent we are upon Black labour, and that is why we are taking our factories to the Bantu homelands.

There is no integration there.

The whole question of integration in industry is in fact largely an academic one. Professor Frankie put it this way some time ago—

But, Sir, it is also held that the border area scheme will lead to a reduction in the labour which will flow to it; indeed it will lead to a reduction in absolute numbers. What are the facts of the situation? Many figures are thrown across the floor of the House, but economists like Dr. Nieuwenhuizen and Stacey have estimated that we will have to provide job opportunities to the extent of 80,000 a year in order to contain those who are already in the homelands and who are seeking job opportunities from there. And what is happening now in terms of this border area scheme? The hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday indicated to us that over the last seven years they have in fact found employment for 53,000. Does this begin to look like a situation that is manageable? Does it begin to look as though it can stop this inflow? This particular development in the border areas has taken place at a cost of R250 million, and one could therefore work out what the per unit costs were to place these people, and you find that in many of these industries it is twice as high as it would have been if they had been sited in the normal conventional areas. We cannot reverse this sort of flow until such time as there is something else there which can draw them away. At the moment this whole border areas investment scheme accounts for about 3½ percent of our total capital investment. It does not even begin to look like doing what is claimed for it. That is why you find an economist like Dr. Nieuwenhuizen writing in The S.A. Journal of Economics saying this—

Now let me quote another authority, somebody who is a well-known economist, who sits on many Government boards and who even graces a seat in this House, although he is unfortunately not here at the moment. Having made an assessment of the border area scheme, what does he say? He wrote in the Sabra journal in October, 1956—

Who is the hon. member who said that? It is the hon. member for Florida.

And he is a director of the I.D.C.

Our objection is that the border areas scheme can never be anything but a very small part in this whole pattern. We want to make the point that it can never do more than that because it is based on false economic premises. The modern economy is one which is primarily a metropolitan one. You cannot isolate industrialization from urbanization. The two are mutually attracting; they go together. Industry tends to move to the greatest concentration of population, in much the same way as water tends to flow to the lowest-lying places. It is because industry offers them something. It offers them entrepreneural and managerial skills, and quite apart from that it has the markets, and nowadays market is seen essentially as purchasing power. The moment you move away from this, you have additional transportation costs, you have lower skills, you do not have an industrial tradition, and hence your productivity is lower. If border development represents an extension of existing industrial areas, it is perfectly logical and that is why it works in Hammanskraal, Rosslyn and elsewhere. But you cannot just create new foci of growth out in the open. You cannot just take industries and string them out like beads of a necklace along the borders of a homeland. In any case, even if you did do it, what would you achieve thereby? You are merely coming nearer to your source of labour, and unskilled labour is one of the most mobile commodities you have in economics nowadays. These things do not get us anywhere nearer the solution to the problem. Economists for years have identified market-orientated industries. They have also identified supply-orientated industries, but here we are concerned with politically orientated industries, and these just do not exist and they have never worked before.

We go further. We say that this approach has inherent risks. What are the implied risks here? They are these. It will suggest to others that we are establishing border industries because we want to further primarily White interests. It will also create further friction, because we are not doing away with all job reservation provisions. Indeed, there are still restrictions that apply. But the greatest disadvantage of the scheme is that it does not even begin to get to the roots of the problem itself, and the problem is the economic development of the Bantu homelands themselves. This is our charge against the Government, that they are adopting primarily a negative approach instead of a positive one. For example, look at the hon. the Deputy Minister when he was on the Rand last year, look at some of the surprising remarks he made. He told some of the municipalities up there that they must not provide such lavish amenities because this will tend to draw the Bantu from their own homelands to the urban areas. Surely the solution is obvious. If these amenities are lavish, you create others in the homelands which are equally lavish or more so, and that is the way you will probably reverse the flow. What is the Government doing at the moment? It is introducing a 5 percent limit and threatening legislation, but those are negative measures. Why do they not get to the roots of the problem, which is to develop the Bantu Homelands? Dr. Tomlinson made this quite clear in his report. He indicated that these areas could never support their own population and provide for growth unless they were industrialized. What is happening at the moment? To what extent are these areas being industrialized?

It is very difficult to get reliable figures. We know in terms of the Government’s 1961 plans that R114 million was provided, and the hon. member for Heilbron was very loquacious on this score yesterday, but what does he not say? He does not indicate how much of that amount is for industrialization itself. The bulk of that money was for agriculture and for providing houses. What we are concerned with is what is being spent at the moment. The Bantu Investment Corporation, from what we can determine, has spent R6 million over the last seven years. What did Dr. Tomlinson indicate nearly ten years ago? He said that R60 million should be spent in ten years. The gap is tremendous. Why is the development so slow in these areas? The Government’s approach is wrong. They are trying to use a Civil Service group to industrialize these areas. I do not want to decry the efforts of the Bantu Investment Corporation. I am sure they are doing the best they can, but you are concerned here with risk-taking and with business, and the Civil Service is probably the worst form of training for that type of risk-taking. And why must the taxpayers’ money be used in any case, when the industrialist can use his money?

These areas will not develop unless we use White capital and White enterprise. Now we come immediately to the problem as to why the Government wishes to prevent this and why they are not anxious to promote it? What are the reasons they have given us? The White Paper said that Black enterprise uninhibited by European or by White competition, should be allowed to develop these areas. But Black enterprise is non-existent in these areas. What is South Africa’s prosperous position due to? It is due to the two important pillars of White initiative and Black labour. What are we doing in this case? We are denying these homelands precisely the two features which made South Africa prosperous. We deny them that important portant catalyst of White initiative, without which those areas will just not develop. What are the other reasons they have given us? They say it will lead to a form of economic colonization. But South Africa itself has received the benefit and the fruits of foreign investment to the extent of some R3,000 million. Even yesterday when the Minister was speaking he said: “Ons kan buitelandse kapitaal nuttig gebruik”, and this is a country which is already industrialized.

Mention to me one country in the world that started off without foreign capital and that has really made a success of industrialization. Then they say thirdly that if we have White capital and initiative there, it will lead to exploitation of the Black people. Now how does it fit in? I as an industrialist can site my factory five miles from a border area and be given every encouragement by the Government but then it is not exploitation. If however I move it five miles further away and it is inside the homeland, then all of a sudden it is exploitation. It does not begin to make sense. Obviously there must be certain controls and once the principle is accepted these controls could be introduced without any difficulty. One could ensure for example that some 51 percent of the equity might be in the hands of the Bantu Investment Corporation or some similar body. One could certainly stipulate time limits after which control might pass completely to the Black people. Instead of having freehold title you might have leasehold title. But provided there were no restrictions on the use of Black people and provided industrialists were given the encouragement that they are given at the moment to go to the border areas, they would go there and they would develop the areas.

If these areas become independent as the Government foreshadows, surely at that stage they are going to seek foreign capital, foreign initiative and foreign assistance. By not allowing our own people to go there at the moment, are we in fact not penalizing them because quite soon when these areas become independent, the Chinese and all sorts of other people are going there to assist them to develop economically. One therefore begins to suspect that there might be other deepseated reasons as to why the Government will not permit White capital and initiative there. Is the first one perhaps not that they are trying to prove that economic interdependence and economic integration does not work—indeed this is a cornerstone of the whole apartheid philosophy. But it has worked all these years in South Africa. Indeed, if we were to disturb this pattern to-day of White initiative and Black labour, then South Africa would be bankrupt within six months. That is how important it is to South Africa. But one suspects also that there might be a more deepseated reason. Despite all their protestations, does the Government really want to make these Bantu homelands independent? Because if you wanted to do so and if you wanted to give them economic viability, then this is the last way you would go about it. If we wanted to make the Free State independent would we deny them the skills and the capital from the rest of South Africa? Would we go and site our factories on their borders? This is the last way you would go about it.

This is a false analogy.

Mr. Speaker, this just indicates once again another important weak link in the whole Government race philosophy. They say that we are against decentralization, but we are not. All that we are saying is that you can never achieve what we and what to some extent the Government wish to achieve in this particular field unless you put the pull in the border areas and make them stronger than they are at the moment, than the established urban areas. But then they always cloud the whole issue. They always put us before a false choice and they say to us in South Africa, “You must either integrate or you must separate because there is nothing in between.” But what has South Africa had for the past 300 years—neither of these.

We have always followed the middle course and that has brought us to the prosperous position we have to-day. Indeed, our problems only started 20 years ago when they came with this policy of forced apartheid. What are the fundamental weaknesses in this policy? It is a policy of splitting, a policy of fission and what happens elsewhere when you resort to this form of splitting and fission. You get a violent explosion. It is not clear what has happened in Korea? For years nobody even knew it existed until it was carved up and split. Look at all the problems they had there. Look at Vietnam. Nobody knew that it existed until they cut it up and split it. This policy of splitting holds in itself tremendous dangers to South Africa. It does not take into account the realities of the South African situation and these are that there is complete economic interdependence. These are also that South Africa is a multi-racial, a diverse community consisting of people of different racial groups. No system can work unless we take this into account and provide for it. Politically speaking, there is no other way in which you could do it except through federation. The choice that we therefore put before South Africa is a simple one. South Africa must either federate or it will disintegrate. If it disintegrates there will follow in its wake chaos such as we have never seen before and then everything that we have built up over the years will be irrevocably lost.

Mr. Speaker, what has struck me particularly since this debate assumed this tone are two arguments which have come from the Opposition side. The first came from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He used a new expression here, an expression which I resent his having used. He said that the border areas development plan of the Government was in fact nothing but economic colonialism. He tried to bring into disfavour in South Africa, and also, probably, in the outside world and among the people concerned, this endeavour to create an opportunity on a very large scale for the Bantu of South Africa to live within reach of their own homelands where they can enjoy certain privileges and where they can in fact be employed in such a way that they will be able to acquire a place of their own and in the meanwhile also undergo a process of self-development which must eventually result in a major rehabilitation plan, a major plan to enable the Bantu to develop their own areas. That was the attitude adopted by the hon. member. The other attitude adopted by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was that of condemning on economic grounds the possibility of the development of the Bantu race groups along with the White within the framework of a policy of developing the border areas. The hon. member therefore says that whatever we do cannot withstand the test of time and in fact cannot show real viability for the future when tested by economic standards. The hon. member says that this plan of the Government must therefore fail in this process. The hon. member said quite a number of things. In every few sentences he made some very challengable assertion. There is a whole series of them. I hope I shall have the time to reply to quite a few of the assertions made by the hon. member. I must tell the hon. member that many of the assertions made by him are not quite correct. They are factually incorrect.

I come to the first assertion made by the hon. member. He says that the aims of the Government to bring about development in the border areas…

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) extending our territorial waters to a minimum of 12 sea miles;
2. (b) proclaiming a further fisheries zone and taking appropriate steps to obtain international recognition therefor;
3. (c) appointing a commission of inquiry into all aspects of our own fishing industry, including, inter alia, the granting of licences and quotas.

In moving this motion, I should like to refer to what I believe is a misconception as regards the speech of the hon. member for Moorreesburg during the last sitting. I submit that there is some confusion in the minds of hon. members when it is thought that the hon. member for Moorreesburg’s motives and mine in asking for a Government inquiry into our fishing industry are the same. If I may quote briefly from his speech, the main points that he made were that we had an annual catch of 1½ million tons, that there has been an increase in the scope of the fishing industry of 13,000 percent, and that the Government had taken important measures to give the industry more scope. In fact the whole emphasis of his speech was on development and further expansion. His main cause for complaint was that there were certain bottlenecks and certain problems, and for that reason he asked for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into “these hitches, bottlenecks and—please note—new possible points of growth in the industry”. I thought at the time that he was referring to the difficulty of getting Bantu labour and other similar problems in the industry. I see now that his main objective was to expand the existing industry My motive is quite different. My motive is that because the fishing industry has expanded so fast and so far that there is a serious danger of depletion of our marine resources.

There has been another opinion, and that is, in view of the statement of the then Minister of Economic Affairs at the end of the discussion on his vote during the last session that it had been decided by the Government to appoint a commission, that it is unnecessary for me to have introduced this motion. It is not at all unnecessary for me to introduce this motion, because we have had experience of the Government’s attitude towards the establishment of other commissions. I refer just in passing to the False Bay Commission. There had been requests for years and years that False Bay should be closed to trawling. After years of protest and agitation the Government ultimately, in December, 1964, decided to appoint a commission. That commission sat early in 1965. Its report only came out towards the end of 1966 and that report, according to the Minister, is still being considered by the Cabinet. I maintain that there is considerable urgency in this matter. Unless the Government takes immediate and effective steps, there is a more than serious danger of our marine resources being depleted.

I have to substantiate my charge. In doing so I should like to refer to our South African fishing areas. In the first place we have the trawling areas, the recognized trawling banks —West Bank, Dassen Island, Cape Columbine and Danger Point. Hake, soles and kingklip are trawled in these areas. Then we have what are known as the shoal fish areas, where pilchards, maasbanker, mackerel and anchovy are netted. These areas centre on the West Coast, north of Cape Town. Then there are the recognized line-fishing areas such as the Wild Coast and the area south of Durban.

I should also like to refer briefly to the fishing areas of South West Africa. As you know, Sir, the chief centres of this industry are at Walvis Bay where there are ten factories—an industry concentrating mainly on pilchards— and at Luderitz where there are four factories, concerned mainly with the catching of rock lobster. We have seen considerable growth in all these areas in the last 20 years. In 1938, the total tonnage of fish caught in the South African and South West African waters was a mere 64,306 tons. This came mainly from canning and freezing of rock lobster and line fishing. By 1948, by way of deep-sea trawling, the tonnage was 46,610; in addition, because the pilchard industry had just been established, 82,000 tons of pilchards were trawled. In all, there was a total of 186,000 tons. By 1966 we had taken from our waters and from the waters of South West Africa 1,250,000 tons. We have become, as hon. members will know, the eighth largest fishing nation in the world. We have a fleet of over 1,000 boats. The capital investment in those boats is over R60 million. There are over 50 depots and factories. A considerable amount of Bantu and Coloured labour is used in the fishing industry. Our exports from the fishing industry alone amount to in excess of R50 million. I think it is interesting to note that we ourselves are very poor consumers of fish. In actual fact South Africans consume only 10.1 lb. of fish pet capita per annum. In contrast to this, the figure for Japan is 70 lb. and that for Norway 55 lb.

I shall now substantiate my allegation that there has been over-fishing. I shall deal in the first place with the shoal fish of South West Africa. The first fishmeal factory and cannery was established in 1948 and 8,700 tons of pilchards were taken in the South West African area in 1949. In 1953 it had grown to 289,000 tons. Then the fishing authorities took fright. They pegged the fishmeal plant capacity. They restricted the number of factories. They limited boat capacity. They discontinued the system of “seasons” and they set a quota system of 250,000 tons. No sooner had they set that quota than they raised it to 540,000 tons per annum in 1963. To-day it stands at 720,000 tons, consisting almost exclusively of pilchards. In 1964 the raw fish catch of South West Africa was 794,856 tons. The fishmeal from that raw fish catch was 191,420 tons. The fish oil amounted to 34,739 tons. In 1965-’66 there was a drop of over 90,000 to a raw fish catch of 704,631 tons. Fishmeal production dropped to 171,270 tons and the fish oil produced amounted to 33,504 tons.

I shall now turn to our own industry. The shoal fish catch in South Africa, as you know, Sir, is governed by quota. In 1965-’66 the total shoal catch was 444,276 tons. The pilchard catch was 132,691 tons. The mackerel catch was 61,163 tons. The maasbanker catch was 48,374 tons and the anchovy catch, an entirely new catch, was 202,048 tons. This meant a drop of 91,806 tons on the 1964-’65 season, in spite of the fact that the fishing industry had made representations to the department concerned for the extension of the open fishing season by one month. What is the attitude of the Director of Fisheries? He discusses the situation in his 1965-’66 report and he speaks of what he calls “the new composition of the Cape’s shoal catch”. This is what he says:

He goes on to say:

He says further:

Mr. Du Plessis, the Managing Director of the Fishing Development Corporation, said:

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the little anchovy of approximately five inches long, is keeping our shoal fishing industry alive at the moment.

What about the history of the pilchard, to give a further example? In 1942 and 1943 it is common knowledge that there were sighted off St. Helena Bay large concentrations of a fish very similar to the sardine that used to be caught off the Californian coast. The Government welcomed this find and gave all possible assistance to the establishment of factories at Saldanha Bay and Lambert’s Bay. In 1952, that is ten years later, the pilchard catch exceeded 300,000 tons. Then, to quote the language of the Director of Fisheries, the shoals “thinned out”, and in 1956 there were only 170,000 tons of shoal fish taken, of which 84,000 tons were pilchards. What did the boats do? They ranged further and further afield. Bigger boats were built and they came south towards Cape Town and Saldanha and even into False Bay. Vertical echo sounding devices were installed in these boats, new factories were erected at Hout Bay, and the fish were found further south. By 1958 the industry had recovered. It is not a matter for congratulation that the industry should have recovered by 1958 with the aid of new devices and by travelling further south to find the shoals that had been chased from further north. Be that as it may, it had recovered to such an extent that 214,000 tons of pilchards were taken from the shoal fish catch of 298,000 tons. The quotas were immediately changed to a system of “open” and “closed” seasons making it more advantageous for the catching of fish by the industry. What did the Director of Fisheries say? He hoped that there would be a return to “normal” conditions. And what were the “normal” conditions to which he referred? In 1962 there was a pilchard catch of 452,735 tons, in 1963 441,943 tons, in 1964 282,301 tons, in 1965 225,067 tons, and in 1966, without counting the extended one month season, the catch was 125,766 tons, and that in the enormous area of sea between the Orange River mouth and Cape Agulhas, including the waters of False Bay. That represents a drop of 326,000 tons over a period of five years.

Recently we have had announced with acclaim the discovery of sonar, horizontal scanners for the pilchards fleets. According to the agent for the horizontal scanners, the original object of the investigation was to conduct research on two broad fronts: to plot the movements of fish further out than usual catching, and to find shoals and guide fishing boats to them. “The fish,” he says “for a variety of reasons, seem to be concentrating further out to sea. Previously the boats set out from the ports. A few went up the coast, and others went down, within sight of the shore. When one boat found a concentration of fish he called up the other by radio-telephone and the boats converged on this point, catching fish until they filled their holds.” All of these devices have resulted in the industry struggling to catch fish near to the shore and finding it necessary to go further out to sea, and indeed they are catching fish at a distance of from 30 to 50 miles from the shore at the moment.

What happened in California? It has been quoted in this House before. In 1937, 761,000 tons of pilchards were caught, and then the shoals began “to thin out”. In 1947, 248,000 tons were caught, and in 1950 only 2,000 tons were caught. That was the crash of the whole industry.

Is it only the pilchard industry that is in danger? What about the perlemoen industry? In 1965-’66 in this industry a record quantity of 1,507,620 lbs. were processed. But scientists now fear that abalone stocks are being overexploited, and legislation is to be introduced limiting the yearly catch to about 900,000 lbs. According to the report before me the previous year was a record year. The report says—

I now come to rock lobster. One of the scientists attached to the Sea Fisheries Department made a detailed study of South African rock lobster species. It was found that there are signs which could have been caused by exploitation of the west coast rock lobster at too high a level. As regards Mount Vema, the Vema lobster was first exploited last year, and at the end of last year catches had petered out almost completely. Two conclusions can be drawn, Sir. Either the lobsters were forced to leave because of pollution, or else because of over-exploitation.

What about the line-fishing industry? A report by the General Manager of the Fisheries Development Corporation says—

What about tunny? The Marlin and Tuna Club reports that in 1963-’64 there were 3,034 tunny caught on rod and reel. In 1964-’65 only 2,000 were caught, whilst in 1965-’66 but 300 were caught. What I have referred to up to now is the position as far as our own industry is concerned.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the position regarding foreigners? We have had newspaper reports, we have had warnings by Ministers on various occasions about the danger of overfishing outside our territorial waters. There have been reports that Russia has a fleet that has been expanded by three factory ships and dozens of ultra-modern long-distance trawlers. This fleet is probably the most modern in the world. It exceeds sixty craft. As regards Japan, three more 20,000-ton fishmeal factory ships are on order in Japanese ship-yards. Spain has a fleet of approximately 50 vessels specially designed for service in South African waters. The latest trawler is described by fishermen as revolutionary. It is fitted with a unique suction pump designed to suck fish from the purse seine net into an internal conveyor system for cooling in brine tanks amidships. Japan, Korea and Nationalist China, West Germany, Holland, Italy, France, Israel, Belgium, Poland, East Germany, Bulgaria—all of these countries are fishing outside our territorial waters. The South African industry itself is expanding with the introduction of floating factory ships and fleets of attendant trawlers. Besides the recently converted Willem Barendsz, work is under way on the conversion of Kosmos V, owned by the Buitesee Viskorporasie (Bpk.), which is a jointly owned subsidiary of KaapKunene and Ovenstones. Negotiations are well under way for the purchase and conversion of a third factory ship.

Where is this all going to end? What does the Director of Fisheries say? On 7th October, 1966, he said as follows—

I quote Mr. van Eck of the same division—

And so it goes on. There are reports about investigations that have to be made, while nothing is being done. I believe that we as a nation are conservation-minded. It dates back to the original visit in 1889 of the American schooner, one of the first purse seine netters in the Cape. An immediate outcry after that visit resulted in the passing of a Fish Protection Act in 1893 and thereafter the appointment in 1896 of a marine biologist and a survey of the Agulhas Bank. The next survey took place in 1920 in the Dassen Island grounds and then, as we all know, we had the two research vessels Africana I and Africana II. What else has the industry done; what else has the Government done? It has imposed quotas; it has established seasons and it has defined net sizes but, every so often, it has relaxed its own regulations to suit the representations of the industry. It has extended the territorial waters to six miles and claimed sovereignty over our continental shelf in terms of the Geneva Convention of 1958. It has created a further six-mile fishing zone. In terms of the Railways and Harbours Amendment Act of 1965, it has the power to refuse facilities to foreign nations engaged in a boycott against us. In last year’s Railway Budget higher wharfage dues were imposed on foreign factory ships and foreign trawlers using our harbours. But no sooner was a protest made by our local industry on the ground that we were losing valuable foreign exchange than those wharfage dues were lifted. New sets of regulations were drawn up in 1966 and various committees were appointed, the most important of which, I believe, is the Boat Limitation Committee which went into the number of boats catching pilchards, maasbankers, mackerels and anchovies. Provision was made for monthly returns of catches made, and for more boats to patrol our sea boundaries. The question arises as to what else we should do, I believe that we should take several steps. The first is that we should extend our present territorial sea from six miles to 12 miles off both the South African and the South West African coast. In doing so we would be supported by the recommendation of the International Law Commission of 1958 in its report on the Geneva Conference that the right of a coastal state to fix the limit of its territorial sea is not disputed but that international law does not permit that limit to be extended beyond 12 miles. Secondly, I believe that we should proclaim a maritime conservation zone because this is one of the current trends in international law. We should bear in mind, in doing so, the extent of our continental shelf. In the south the average width of our continental shelf between Hangklip and Mossel Bay is 70 miles; in the west it is 36 miles; in the east it is 15 miles. We have plenty of precedents for the proclamation of a maritime conservation zone, going back to the Truman Proclamations in America in 1945 when it was stated—

The President further authorized “the enactment of provisions for the administration, regulation and control of the fishery resources of and fishing activities in such zones”. Sir, it was not a claim to exclusive authority over fishery exploitation in the High Seas. The Americans were simply concerned with emphasizing that the right of entry into their conservation zones by foreigners was conditional on those foreigners participating in their conservation schemes. That, I believe, is a sensible step which the Government can take. We also have further precedents. In 1952 Chile, Ecuador and Peru, by way of the Santiago Declaration, established a maritime zone of 200 miles from their coast and declared those areas to be subject to exclusive sovereignty of the claimants, not only for the conservation of marine flora and fauna but for the exploitation of those resources. Sir, the modern trend is in favour of unilateral fishing regulation and we should follow suit, as Argentina followed suit only five days ago when they unilaterally extended their maritime jurisdiction over the adjacent waters to 200 nautical miles from low tide. In addition in the proclamation, sovereignty is extended to adjacent sea bed and sub-soil of the submarine zones up to the 200 metre isobar. Regulations are about to be promulgated by the Argentine Government and in the meantime foreigners are expected to observe certain requirements which are clearly stipulated in their announcement.

Lastly, Sir, I believe that the time has come when the Government should act and convene an international fishing conference. As far as I am aware, in almost all the important fishing oceans of the world, there are conventions governing the exploitation and the conservation of marine resources in those oceans, and yet the waters around our coasts, so rich in marine resources, for some reason or other, are governed neither by convention nor by agreement, Sir, if we convene such a conference we have precedent after precedent for sea conventions, and claims to larger maritime belts, and judging by happenings in recent years and months, I believe that our claims would be well supported and that agreement would be obtained.

It was with interest that I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown, and I was very glad to see that he approached this matter very calmly and in a serious manner, somewhat different from the way in which he approached it about a year ago; then, shortly before the election of 1966, he came out rather strongly against the commission which was at that time conducting an investigation into fishing in the False Bay area. He very obviously tried to make some political capital out of it. I am glad that the hon. member can now at least forget the election and that he approached the subject from a broader point of view to-day and that he—I think this is the purport of his speech—expressed serious concern in particular about the possible damaging and depletion of our fish resources. We can assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House agree with him as far as the general purport of his argument is concerned and that in the main we share his views.

The sea definitely remains one of man’s greatest reserves with a view to future provision of food for the growing population of the world. During the past two decades the nations of the world have turned to the sea in very large measure and have made very serious attempts to exploit and to use the riches of the sea. Therefore, it is not surprising and it was high time that our industrialists in South Africa should direct their efforts to taking their rightful share in the exploitation of the riches of the sea and making it available to our nation, and also harnessing it in order to earn foreign exchange for South Africa. We have undoubtedly had tremendous success in this direction during the past 20 years. I think we can extend a word of congratulation to our industrialists who have entered this field which is a new one for South Africa, and who have developed our fishing industry from a very small and modest beginning to a considerable industry which today earns R50 to R60 million in foreign exchange for South Africa and in that way makes a very important contribution as far as supplying food for our own population is concerned, even if it is the case, as the hon. member for Simonstown said, that our population’s consumption of sea products, of fish, is still relatively low. It is undoubtedly so that we have not yet become really fish and seafood conscious, but we can also expect that our people will consume fish to an increasing extent.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the data which the hon. member for Simonstown gave us here; I just want to emphasize some of the facts once again and change the perspective a little. The position at the present moment is that we have a fishing fleet of 139 trawlers with a total tonnage of 13,480 which is concentrating upon one branch of the fishing industry, namely the catching of shoalfish for the purpose of producing fish-meal and fish-oil. The hon. member pointed out that our annual catch amounts to approximately 1¼ million tons. We have to mention another figure in addition to that, and that is that at the present moment an annual total of 4,160,000 tons of fish is caught along the African coast, that is to say, along the coast of Angola and the Republic. In other words, foreign powers catch nearly three times as much fish along the African coast as South Africa herself does. That means that we are not exploiting our fish potential to the full, but that other powers are deriving great benefit from it and are exploiting it to their advantage; and therefore, where the hon. member advocates the necessity of appointing a commission of inquiry, especially in view of the danger of our fish resources becoming depleted, another consideration we have to bear in mind is that we are in competition and that we shall gain nothing by reducing and severely restricting our own catches while foreign powers come and take off the riches of the sea. I must add to that that the hon. member put forward a proposal to extend our territorial waters and our fishing zone, by means of which he wants to try and restrict the catches. But we have to keep in mind that South Africa, in relation to the riches of our seas and our fishing resources, is exploiting only a modest portion and that the rest is being exploited by other powers.

In actual fact there are three branches to our fishing industry. The first is the catches for the production of fish-meal and fish-oil, which are made mainly by our trawlers which catch shoals of fish for our factories by means of nets, but then we have another branch to our fishing industry, namely the catching of so-called whitefish for the purpose of obtaining supplies of fresh and frozen fish which are offered mainly on the fish markets of the world, both in our country and overseas. It is interesting that this is a smaller branch of the industry, but nonetheless an important one. A catch of nearly 200 million pounds of whitefish—of various kinds, of which stockfish was the most important—was made in 1957 and the value at landing of those fish amounted to R4,202,777. Stockfish accounted for 133 million pounds of that total of 200 million pounds. In other words, nearly three quarters of the total was made up of the more popular variety. In 1960 catches rose to 258,898,000 pounds and the value thereof at landing was nearly R5,900,000. In 1961 the catch was 247 million pounds with a value at landing of R5,265,000. In 1965 the catch was 229,626,000 pounds, with a value at landing of R5,753,000. I am mentioning these figures merely to show that we have a branch of the fishing industry here which remains at a reasonably steady level, and I want to repeat that it is an important branch of the industry and one in the field of which, in my opinion, there is still a reasonable opportunity for expansion. It is, if I may put it in this way, the difficult part of the industry. If we now argue that we have to think seriously of stricter measures for preserving our fishing resources, then we must remember that we cannot make rules which are simply applied to other branches of the fishing industry as well, and that we have an industry here which we should encourage, and that the development possibilities of that industry should be further investigated, and that there are many facets which should be investigated with a view to further development and extension.

The third branch of our fishing industry is our rock lobster industry, which also means a great deal to South Africa by way of earning exchange on the foreign market and which, in addition, is to an increasing extent making a contribution as far as supplying food to our own nation is concerned. I want to emphasize to-day that our Government has over the years been deeply conscious of the danger of depletion. The hon. member mentioned that, The Department is conscious of the danger and that warning voice has been heard. But although the Department has been aware of the danger of depletion, it could not simply put a spoke in the wheel and impose restrictions upon the industry. Planning was necessary and the entrepreneurs in the industry had to be encouraged to develop it as far as possible and to exploit the potential of our fishing resources in the interests of the country. That has also been done in the case of our rock lobster industry, which is one of the branches where a system of control and restrictions has been developed over the years, a system which is a fairly strict one in my opinion. In the rock lobster industry we have the breeding areas which are forbidden territory and where catching is not allowed, and we have a closed season which extends from 1st June to 30th September, which has again been extended during the past year, and which is subject to change every year according to circumstances. It is important that the fishing community which forms part of the industry should co-operate very well with the Government and the Department and should always declare themselves prepared to observe the restrictions which are imposed. When the closed season is extended it is usually the fishermen themselves who fall in with it and who make suggestions as to how it could best be done. I think I must mention that our fishing community have a positive approach and that they also take a long-term view and would like to see our fishing industry being stabilized, because that is, of course, not only in the interests of the country, but also in their interest. I think the Department has over the years provided an example of proper planning and preservation of our rock lobster and fishing industry in this regard.

As regards our fishing industry, especially the fish-meal industry, there are also severe restrictions. There are restrictions in respect of processing units. People cannot simply establish more factories and start producing fishmeal. There is a restriction on processing units and a severe restriction on the tonnage allocated and the number of trawlers which may be made available to exploit the quotas. If the hon. member advocates restrictions and stricter control, I think he should join us in giving the Government credit for the fact that a tremendously great deal has already been done.

I now want to come to his proposal in regard to our territorial waters and the extension of our fishing zones. It is not such an easy matter to act unilaterally in regard to these things. In the old days the limits of the territorial waters were fixed on the basis of the range of any particular country’s weapons, and the limit decided upon three miles, which was approximately the range of the naval guns of the various countries. But not all countries fell in with that. Norway, for example, set the limit of their territorial waters at four miles, and Greece decided on six miles some years ago. We know that in 1930 the League of Nations held a conference to arrive at an international agreement in regard to this matter, and in 1960 a U.N. conference was held at Geneva. Only one vote was lacking to secure a two-thirds majority for deciding upon a six-twelve mile limit, that is to say, six miles of territorial waters and a twelve-mile fishing zone. I think that testifies to the awareness of the countries of the world, members of the U.N., which have an interest in this industry, of the dangers of depleting our marine resources and of their willingness to co-operate. I repeat that one vote was lacking for a two-thirds majority in favour of such a resolution. In other words, two-thirds but one of the members of that conference voted in favour of this six-mile limit for territorial waters and a twelve-mile fishing zone. It is therefore world-wide phenomenon that the nations which have an interest in the fishing industry want to conserve the riches of the sea.

But now the question is whether we can do what the hon. member has asked, namely to extend our territorial waters to 12 miles unilaterally and to extend our fishing zones unilaterally to 25 or 100 miles or even further, as other countries have tried to do, Then I want to say that through the years South Africa has always respected existing conventions in her international relations. I think that by doing that South Africa has earned herself a good reputation in international relations, and if we were to take such a decision unilaterally to-day, I wonder whether we would increase our prestige in international relations. As the hon. member said, there are quite a few countries that go in for fishing along our South African coast, outside our fishing zone, and he also mentioned the countries, such as Russia and Spain, which have the largest fleets. The question is now what we can achieve by that, and I think in the first place we shall give offence to foreign powers. But we can also very easily create international incidents which can have bad consequences. It is very difficult to imagine that the countries which have gone in for fishing along our coast for many years will simply allow themselves to be chased away and to be deprived of the right to catch fish there by a unilateral decision of South Africa. If we think of the position of South West Africa in world politics, we are convinced that that decision can have very serious consequences particularly as regards South West Africa. Therefore I am not very strongly in favour of this idea that we should extend our territorial waters and our fishing zone by means of a unilateral decision of the Government, but I think that the Government should approach this matter very carefully and that the Department of Commerce and Industries through its Sub-department of Sea Fisheries should rather give consideration to ways and means which are within our reach to encourage our fishing industry, to investigate further our methods of fishing and the extent of our marine resources, and to see what improvements we can bring about, and to keep the industry on a sound basis in this way and to try and stabilize it for the future.

I may say that we should not take the figures in respect of the annual catches too seriously and accept that the industry is going to ruin, because statistics show that catches run in cycles. One year they are bad and the next year a little better and the year after that perhaps a good deal better, and then you have years of a gradual decline again, and then there are periods of better catches again, Thus 1966 was a bad fishing year, but the indications are that we shall experience better times again. In the main I want to identify myself with what the hon. member said, but I want to ask that we should act with circumspection as far as extending our territorial waters is concerned, and that we should act wisely and should co-operate in order to preserve and develop our fishing resources for the future.

I support the motion moved by the hon. member for Simonstown, and I would like to congratulate him on the speech he made. I think his speech could be a handbook for the Minister who is handling this matter. The amount of information and the facts that have been garnered show a tremendous amount of research and investigation, and in a short and concise speech the hon. member has placed the emphasis where it belongs and has submitted this information to us here in Parliament. I think I can sum up what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down by saying that he also approves of the resolution, and much of what he has said is really in support of the motion, although perhaps from a slightly different angle. But I want to say this in regard to what the last speaker has said, and think it is implicit in what was said by the mover of the motion, and that is that in this motion there is no condemnation of anyone. There may be criticism implied in respect of some aspects of our fishing industry, but this is an objective attempt to deal with an industry which, as the figures have shown, is the basis of one of the big industrial projects in South Africa.

I want to approach this problem from a slightly different angle from that of the mover and the last speaker. Throughout the history of commercial fishing in South Africa the emphasis has, probably quite rightly, been laid on the Western coast and the cold waters there, That emphasis has tended to take away official and private interests from the eastern shores with their warm waters, and I think that is a great pity, but it may have been a blessing in disguise. If indeed an investigation shows that there is over-fishing taking place on the west coast and in the Cape Peninsula area, then possibly it may be that we have an unexpected reserve of fish on the east coast where the warm waters are, The lack of appreciation of the potential on the east coast has been shown by successive Governments right from the time of Union in the failure to make provision for fishing harbours and for adequate facilities for the catching and the processing of fish on the east coast. The argument has been used repeatedly on the basis of fishing that was undertaken by fishing research vessels in the past, and so on, that the waters on the east coast have not the fish to the extent that the cold waters have it in the Atlantic ocean. That of course may be true to a very great extent when one looks at it from the point of view of shoal fish and the accepted orthodox type of commercial fishing that is taking place on the west coast. But even the techniques in connection with fishing are changing. The hon. member for Simonstown pointed to some of the new scientific methods that are being adopted in the Cape. And it may well be that new techniques may provide us with an unexpected reserve of fish on the east coast. On the west coast—I think it was the Japanese who have come with this long-line fishing as I think it is called and which is something quite new in our experience—the method of long-line fishing is being copied and is producing a tremendous quantity of fish, which has nothing to do with shoal fish.

On the east coast we have a development which as far as I know has not been duplicated on the west, and that is the development of the ski-boat as it is called. Small craft are used, usually with a crew of not more than four at the outside, powered with two very high-powered and fast outboard motors, able to get out to a distance of several miles and able to get in again quickly if the weather should turn against them. Last year they produced, according to figures that I have received, something over two million pounds weight of fish. That two million pounds weight of fish is little in regard to the whole. But then I want to point out that it is a technique that has not been developed elsewhere. And it has this advantage. That two million pounds weight of fish comes here into the South African market for consumption in our own country. And this is one of the things that I am concerned with, Because, I believe that South Africa, broadly speaking, is paying a price internally, at overseas levels. We are paying an internal price at overseas levels, and that goes for the lot, be it crayfish or rock lobster or whatever they may want to call it to-day, right down through the whole gamut of fish and fish products. It is because of the export trade and the fact that we do get good prices overseas. People do not want to sell at the old prices, the cheap prices here in South Africa. The result is that sometimes you can get good beef which has taken the farmer five years to raise, with all the risks of drought and all the rest of it, at a cheaper price than what you have to pay sometimes for seafood which is acquired at the goodwill of the Almighty from the waters that flow round our coast. One of the places to be provided with the benefits of our fishing industry should surely be our own country and our own people. This is where some of the benefits, I should say one of the major benefits of care and protection and the consideration of our fishing industry may pay good dividends. And where I mention two million pounds of fish on the east coast taken by ski-boats last year, I am not saying that that is a vast quantity of fish. I am saying that its value lies in the fact that it is brought in fresh, sold forthwith and consumed by our own people, at a price which is by and large, generally speaking, a reasonable price, under all the circumstances. The east coast is also developing another technique and the more reason why I should like to see an inquiry and investigation into the matter raised in paragraph (c) of the motion of the hon. member for Simonstown, namely to go into the whole question of the relationship between commercial fishing and our angling community, the anglers. It should cover the whole of the development along the sea coast. I am not quite certain what the position is in the Cape. Originally, at the time of Union, the two maritime provinces were left with certain legal powers which vested in their provincial councils, with regard to our semi-enclosed bays, estuaries and lagoons. I am not sure whether the Cape has more or less handed over those powers to the Central Government. We still exercise some of those powers in so far as Natal is concerned. There is growing up a truly tremendous interest with a huge crowd of supporters for spear-fishing. Now, whether it be line fishing, that is the ordinary angler fishing from the rocks, a ski-boat or a pleasure boat that is fitted out for the purpose, or whether it is spear-fishing or some other form of inshore angling as it is called to-day, the fact remains that that fish is being taken relatively close to the coast. But it is producing a tremendous interest in so far as the sporting side is concerned. And we are now starting to draw sportsmen from all over the world. It is not publicized. Apart from the people who know something about it and who are interested in it, it is not even generally known, not even by our own folk who may be living alongside the beach. We are getting people coming from the other side of the world to come and take part in spear-fishing. We have already had recommendations from the spear-fishing fraternity in Natal for protected areas in the waters off the coast of Natal, because of the possibility that that fish may be annihilated through the upsurge of spear-fishing activities. I have no figures and I do not think figures are available to show us exactly the amount of fish that is being taken. You may see in the newspapers now and again a picture of a man holding up a big catch of something or other and saying that that was what he took with his spear and that it weighed 30 lb., 40 lb., or 50 lb., or whatever it may be. That is just about the only publicity you get for it, This is one of the amenities of South Africa to-day. In the same way as big game fishing in other countries attracts people from all over the world and brings in a tremendous amount of revenue, so here our angling and spear-fishing and associated activities can bring in an enormous amount of revenue for us in South Africa. I listened with interest to what the hon. member who has just sat down had to say in connection with the limit, the fixing of a limit, and the difficulties which we may encounter internationally. In regard to the waters close inshore there can be no difficulty and there can be no doubts. Fish proliferates there but it can be augmented. Other countries have found that it is possible to augment the fish in their inshore waters by taking certain measures. Let me give you an interesting discovery from my own experience. Many years ago when I was a young man we had a disease which wiped out the whole of the mussels on the Natal coast. The mussels there which appeared above high tide mark and below low tide mark, not only in the inter-tidal zone as they call it, but way down below that, were virtually wiped out. You could go across rocks there for miles and miles along the coast and you would not see one single mussel. But gradually spats started to come in again from a few odd individuals that had been left, they began to build up and to-day again right from the Transkei border to the Portuguese border at Ouro Point, the mussels are there again in their millions. That is the basic food supply for a whole group of fishes which come inshore for the purpose of those mussels. On the west coast plankton is the big food or main food in the ocean. We do not have plankton to any great extent on the east coasṭ at all, We have a different kind of animalculaein the sea there. That is why we have a different kind of fish. The protection of the basic food requirements of the habitat—the food in the habitat—of the fish there can as I have said augment our fish supply and build up the interests in so far as the angling fraternity are concerned and the people who are prepared to make a sport out of inshore angling. And if I go no further than the coastline of my own province it gives us well over 400 miles of coastline. Already we are receiving requests for protection because of the tremendous drain that is already being exerted on those fishes. But apart from that there is little in the way of commercial exploitation. You may find it perhaps on the fishing bank, on the Agulhas bank where the Moçambique current comes down, where you have one or two of the fishing companies who are doing a certain amount of commercial fishing by means of old, time-honoured methods that they have adopted for the last 50 years or more.

New techniques and new methods can find new ways of catching fish. Perhaps an investigation will show that new methods can find new ways of catching fish. Perhaps an investigation will show that new methods will find, as I say, an untold wealth of fish on the east coast, 10, 12, 15 or even 20 miles out. I do agree with what the hon. member and the hon. member who moved the amendment had to say about the outside fleets. What is happening, it seems to me, is that South Africa is breaking the ice. We are the “Voortrekkers”, the trail-makers and when we have found big supplies of fish, then there are other nations coming in, who are very willing indeed to take the fruits of that which people have found and exploited and proved the worth of. They are outside our territorial waters and we cannot touch them. There is nothing we can do about it. It is legitimate presumably as long as they are inside the law. It is a matter which we ought to view, all the same, with a very great deal of care and consideration so as to see how far that goes, because these are nations who are very careful not to allow outside interference so far as their territorial waters are concerned. I would like the Government to turn its attention to the east coast, as well as to the west. On the general question of conservation, the fishing industry is bringing us in so much money to-day, that I believe that the Director of Fisheries and his staff could be allowed far greater sums of money for the purpose of oceanic research to investigate the whole of the basic principles underlying the fishing industry in South Africa both on the east and the west coast, Pure, basic scientific investigation and the facts which can be derived from that investigation are what we need. I believe that it is going to be well worth our while to spend big sums of money, because if we conserve, we will have a perpetual source of food for our own people in the last resort, whatever may be the position so far as the export market is concerned. But once it is depleted to a stage that the cost of acquiring the fish has been raised above the price the consuming public can pay, then we have lost something of exceptional value which may take a very long time to replace. We have to conserve, so that that basic breeding stock shall not be depleted. If our breeding stocks are gone, or if a disease should strike it, what will happen? When I think of what happened to the mussels on the Natal coast some 30 or 35 years ago, and I think that that kind of disease can strike perhaps our shoal fish on the west coast, I feel concerned. We have had this kind of thing happening in the history of fishing throughout the world. It has been known in the past. A disease like that can desolate your shoals. The fleets from Spain, Russia and elsewhere up their anchors and away they go, looking for other fishing grounds. We are left with the depleted fishing grounds. We have to husband our resources. But the time to make that basic investigation, and to find out what we have and what is necessary to preserve it, is now, This, I suggest is the time that we should be doing that and it is well worth the expenditure of large sums of money. I particularly look at paragraph (c) of this resolution, which asks for an investigation of the kind suggested by the hon. member, and I ask the Government, Sir, to look at the east as well as the west coast of our continent, of our country.

Let me say at once that I am delighted that it is possible for us to sail in such calm waters in discussing this important motion. The hon. member who has just sat down made a few very important observations to which I want to refer later in my contribution to this debate. To begin with I want to refer to the observation made by the hon. member for Simonstad who introduced this motion and who referred to the plea I had made here last year under the Vote of the Minister in question for an enquiry similar to the one he was asking for, It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I did plead for such an enquiry on the part of the State on that occasion last year. I pointed out that as far as the process of development of our fishing industry, our rock lobster industry and particularly our marine industry in all its facets was concerned, it was perhaps essential at this stage for us, on behalf of the State, to put our heads together and to formulate what we wanted to do in the future, and also to investigate the bottlenecks, because this industry has developed very rapidly in recent years. Certain points of friction have developed. There are bottlenecks which in my opinion require a thorough investigation on the part of the State at this stage. I want to point out that what I had in mind in the first instance—and I want to emphasize and advocate this once again on behalf of this side of the House as well—was a broad, scientific inquiry into our entire marine industry, not only the fishing industry, not only the rock lobster industry, but an inquiry into all the facets of our entire marine industry, particularly with a view to indicating new points of growth by means of a scientific approach. It was pointed out here by the hon. member for Piketberg, and it has already been said repeatedly, that it is strange, that it is astonishing really, that the people of the world had not yet undertaken research into and the exploitation of the riches of the sea with greater scientific drive and enterprise. We are spending millions of rand at present in order to go to the moon. Is it not strange that man did not turn to the oceans in the first instance? The oceans cover 71 per cent of the surface of the earth. But viewed from a scientific angle, it is true that not even 5 per cent of the ocean bed has been explored scientifically at this stage. In an important speech shortly before his tragic death, the late President Kennedy intimated that on the part of his country more attention would be devoted to and greater activity would be displayed in respect of oceanographic research in the future. He said that our entire existence in the future would depend on our knowledge of the oceans. That is true, but in this respect, too, the fact remains that scientific research and its technical implementation will yet again have to pave the way for us to greater successes in the future. Now, it is true that there has been greater interest in oceanographic research, greater scientific support in respect of our marine industry and all its facets, on the part of various peoples of the world in recent times, especially in the past few years. I want to mention the example here of the Advisory Committee of the American President which passed a resolution very recently—I think it is six to seven weeks ago—in which the attention of the President of America was once again called to the importance of a body being established for more purposeful and concentrated development in respect of research in the marine industry. They recommended that the amount of money which had to be spent in America in future years up to 1971, had to be more than doubled until it amounted to R420 million during the next few years. If we look at these facts, I think that all of us in South Africa should be telling one another that we may not lag behind in this field. We must turn to the oceans in greater earnest. I want to tell you why. South Africa has a coast line which is 2,000 miles long. In addition to that we have warm and cold sea currents, as has already been pointed out by the hon. member. In other words, we are virtually surrounded by oceans. What a challenge this is to South Africa’s technologists, to our scientists! There is a second truth: We are close to the South Pole. From a scientific angle this is very important. At present we are the world’s second largest exporter of fish meal. We are the world’s third largest manufacturer of fish and fish oil. In addition this fishing industry is growing so fantastically at present, or it has been doing so over the past few years, that the situation here in the Western Cape at present is such that the fishing industry in the Western Cape already earns us more foreign exchange than an old established industry such as the wine industry. At present this fishing industry in the Western Cape is a strong competitor of our fruit industry.

I also want to mention another point why it is important for us to look after our oceans in greater earnest. It is also important to note that the industry is committed to the export market for almost 90 per cent of its turnover. That is also important. important, For this reason—the hon. member has already referred to it—I pleaded here last year for the appointment of a commission. The hon. the Minister indicated at that time that such a commission would in fact be nominated. The commission I envisaged, would have been much broader in scope than the one proposed by the hon. member in point (c) of his motion. I envisaged an inquiry which was based on scientific principles and which, as I have said, would cover a much wider field in respect of oceanographic research and the marine industry in all its various facets.

In the short time at my disposal I want to indicate a few points which I feel, viewed from a broad angle as well as from more practical angles, are essential at this stage and to which we should pay attention by means of such a commission. The first question I want to ask is whether even at this stage the time has not arrived for us to think of a separate ministry—or shall I call it a separate department—for our marine industry in its wider scope. I am thinking of a separate State department. If there is justification at present for a State department of tourism, of sport, of forestry, and others, I should say that, in view of the great value which is being attached to our marine industry, we in South Africa should consider the establishment of a separate State department for our marine industry even at this early stage. The peoples of the world are going to turn to the seas in greater earnest and to an ever-increasing extent, and our activities at sea are going to cause more and more international complications to develop, as is apparent from the situation in respect of our territorial waters, the re-defining of our territorial waters and the factory ships which are increasing in number and size all the time. This entire aspect in respect of our marine industry is also gaining international prestige, and for this reason, Sir, I think that we should pay more attention to the organization of this industry in the future.

There is a second aspect I want to mention, namely the planning of a sea project, something I also advocated here by way of a motion introduced two or three years ago. At the moment I do not want to motivate this proposal any further, but in this respect, too, I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for us to co-ordinate our research in South Africa—research which is rather important and which is being carried out well by our scientists—on a larger scale, and to come forward with a planned sea project somewhere along our coast, a project by means of which we can show the world that that is what we are prepared to invest in this industry.

A third point I want to mention, is the disorderly pattern along our coastline. Up to now it has been the position that in the areas where this industry has developed so fantastically fast, the State lands immediately bordering on our coast fell under the old Department of Lands at first and falls under the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure at present. As I see the position, disorderly development has taken place in many places, and the question is whether the jurisdiction over these areas immediately bordering on the sea, should not be removed from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and transferred to this particular department I have proposed. I think that we shall then have greater co-ordination and better and more purposeful planning in respect of the development of our marine industry. I think we cannot leave this situation as it is at present.

There is a fourth point I should like to mention, and it is an aspect such a commission of inquiry would also be able to investigate. I am referring to the labour structure of our entire marine industry. The normal future labour structure in respect of our fishing and rock lobster industry in particular, requires thorough analysis and planning at this stage. In respect of the labour structure relating to the Whites in our fishing industry, we have had the establishment of the naval academy at Grainger Bay. That was an important step in the training of Whites in our marine industry. But especially in the Western Cape we are in the first instance committed to Coloured labour. I am asking myself whether we should not investigate the matter in the complexes along our coastline where there is great activity in respect of our entire marine industry, to see whether attention should be given at this stage to certain elementary principles in respect of Coloured labour. I am thinking of certain elementary aspects to which attention can be paid at ordinary schools even at this stage, aspects which can be taught there. At a very early stage these subjects can be brought home to the Coloured child, particularly in view of the fact that owing to the geographic lie of the land he will immediately be linked up, as it were, with the marine indusry. For instance, I wonder whether the following subjects may not be dealt with as part of the syllabus, namely seamanship, signalling, types of tackle, the manufacture, repair and manipulation of nets—which is a very expensive article at present—fishing methods, marine life in general, the hygienic handling of fish and the use of by-products. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we sought greater stability in the labour market of this important industry.

There is a fifth point, which, I think, may be investigated, and that is the technology of fishing. Smaller catches do not necessarily mean that there is a decrease in the quantity of fish in the sea. This is often a result of defective knowledge of the industry. Fish migrate, but what do we in South Africa know at present about the migratory habits of fish? In this respect we are tremendously far behind. That may be an important reason for those catches decreasing at times. There is also the question of deep-sea fishing. I am taking the position in respect of tunny catches as an example. At present it is being felt by all concerned that our tunny catches will not develop properly before more profitable methods of catching have been found. This is an important aspect on which I cannot elaborate any further. It is an aspect which we must investigate scientifically and which needs further research. In other words, the hon. member’s opinion concerning the reason for the decrease in the numbers of our fish, is not entirely correct. There may be other reasons of which we do not know at this stage.

The sixth point which I feel may be investigated by such a commission, is the artificial fertilization of oceans and conservation farming in the sea. It is indeed a big mouthful, but it is a fact that science will have to devote its attention to this matter. We simply cannot reap all the time and never sow. We cannot merely take from the sea in an unrestrained manner. The time has arrived—and judging by the spirit in which he spoke, I think the hon. member agrees with me—for science to help us here. We shall have to determine what we can put back into the sea. I should like to point out that Australia already has a submarine farm which is already in production at this stage. South Africa cannot remain behind in this field, either.

There is also the question which has already been touched upon here by the hon. member for South Coast and into which I cannot go any further for lack of time. He spoke about the use made of our sea products by our population. It is estimated that the Whites in this country only eat 8 per cent of our own fish caught here annually. As regards the Bantu, I think that they eat approximately 40 lbs. per person per year. If we compare this position with the position in other countries, it becomes apparent that we eat reasonably little, as the hon. member has rightly observed. The consumption in Japan, Iceland, Norway and Sweden is more than 50 lbs. per person per year. In the U.S.A. and Portugal it is approximately 30 lbs. per person. Here in South Africa the average consumption, the Bantu included, is only 12 lbs. per person per year. I agree with the hon. member that this aspect should also receive more attention.

There is the matter of our fishing harbours. As far as the development of our fishing harbours is concerned, there was a time when we could not even spend all the money that was voted in the Estimates, owing to the shortage of engineers. In this respect there has also been a great improvement, but even here we should plan much more purposefully. The State will also have to be prepared to render more extensive service in respect of the East Coast. This is an aspect which can be planned much more purposefully. Our general methods of control also deserve to be investigated. I just want to point out that all of the producers in the rock lobster industry in the area extending from Hout Bay and including almost the entire West Coast, attended a meeting on 27th January, this year. Approximately 90 per cent of them were present, and a very important discussion on bottle-necks in the industry took place there. Incidentally, a memorandum was handed to me this morning, a memorandum from the entire corps on the West Coast, and I shall give it to the hon. the Minister. In that memorandum there are approximately 10 or 12 points which to my mind calls for a very thorough investigation by such a commission.

Then there is the matter of our conservation methods. As far as this aspect is concerned, are we, as the hon. member asks in his motion, up to date in South Africa at present? Is it not possible for us to give attention to this matter once again? These 10 points I have mentioned here, are aspects of our marine industry which in my opinion ought to be investigated very thoroughly at this stage by such a commission of inquiry. In view of our long coastline of almost 2,000 miles, it is in our interests that we should look after our marine industry in much greater earnest in the future, and that is why I, on behalf of this side of the House, want to support particularly point (c) of the hon. member’s motion in broad principle.

I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Mooreesburg who has rather indicated some degree of disappointment that following his motion in this House in 1965, no steps seem to have been taken to implement the appeal which he then made for maritime research and to implement the various other suggestions which he then made and which he has repeated here this afternoon. In that debate in February, 1965, the hon. the Minister of Planning made a reference to the fact that certain research was going to be undertaken by the South African National Committee for Oceanographic Research. I should be interested if he is able to tell us what progress has been made in the two years which have passed since that announcement was made in this House.

Sir, I want to confine myself to point (c) of the motion and to indicate reasons why I feel that a commission of inquiry is necessary so far as the fishing industry is concerned. I do so, Sir, because we have had the warning that the catches are becoming smaller despite the extensions which have taken place within the industry, extensions by the grant of additional licences and by the grant of additional quotas. I notice from the latest statistics that in spite of the fact that from 1960 to 1964 there was an increase of almost 50 per cent in the number of boats of varying sizes which were being used in the fishing industry, that the total catch remained almost the same in 1964 as it was in 1960. Sir, for these reasons I do feel that one must be cautious in considering the suggestion made by the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Piketberg with regard to further extension of the industry until such time as we know where the industry is going. I think there are vital facts that must be ascertained scientifically before there is any talk of further expansion of the opportunities for catching fish. The danger exists at the moment on the west coast that that coast may be over-fished, and instead of the development that we all would like to see on the west coast, we may find ourselves extending the Skeleton Coast towards the south, along the west coast of the Cape Province.

Sir, I want to turn to one or two matters on which I hope the hon. the Minister will be good enough to give information to the House. I want to refer in the first place to the conditions attaching to the grant of crayfish quotas, for instance. I do know that the Minister in granting the quotas imposes certain conditions. I want to refer to just two of them. The first is this: “Geen belang of aandeel in die kwota sal oordraagbaar wees of verhandel word sonder die toestemming van die Minister van Ekonomiese Sake nie.” A further condition was compulsory membership of the South African Frozen Rock Lobster Packers (Pty) Ltd. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that these quotas are being utilized by those to whom they were granted and for the benefit of those persons who should have had the benefit of them; in other words, that there is no trafficking in these quotas. In his capacity as Minister of Economic Affairs, the hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that despite rather stringent supervision, this difficulty does arise in regard to import permits, and I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that the present control of quotas is such that there is no trafficking in quotas. Then, Sir, I wonder whether the time has not come when the public should be taken into the confidence of the Government and when there should be a clear unequivocal statement as to what considerations determine the granting or otherwise of quotas, licences or facilities in the industry. I do not want to mention the names of any particular concerns this afternoon but members of the public find it very difficult to understand what is going on when a company, which has been concerned solely with rock-lobster business, suddenly receives, or is able to receive, a fish-meal quota, a company which has not fished pilchards, a company which had no fish-meal factory and was entirely a rock-lobster company. I believe that these are matters in which the Minister can dispel public concern by saying quite clearly what considerations motivate the granting of these licences and permits. The Minister realizes how tremendously valuable these permits are. South African Industry and Trade,writing in July, 1965, went so far as to suggest that a South African fishing permit was a licence to print money. One wonders whether the time has not come to consider the question, when it is possible to extend the industry and to grant further licences, of introducing some sort of tender system in order to control the granting of further permits and further licences, because a great evil has grown up in this country in the general conduct of our economic affairs; one finds—and I do not limit this to the fishing industry only—that there is a rumour that a certain right or a certain permit or a certain quota or a certain import permit is going to be given and immediately there is a great deal of gambling in unquoted shares. There is no control of these transactions, and the result is that there have been most serious losses suffered by the public because of the uncertainty as to when and where and if quotas, permits and licences are to be granted. I believe that the Government can take steps in this regard to ensure that there is no gambling of this kind. It has happened only too often in recent years, in recent months almost, that very serious losses have been sustained in dealing in the shares of companies which have been granted licences and permits in the fishing industry.

Sir, I do not want to repeat points which have already been raised by other hon. members this afternoon, and for that reason I have merely indicated to the hon. the Minister these further facets of the fishing industry which I believe do need serious consideration. The hon. the Minister indicated two years ago that something was being done about oceanographic research. I believe that further research is necessary and I believe also that the one thing that the Minister must not be led into is the creation of another State Department to look after this particular industry, because then he will be compelled to co-ordinate the activities of that State Department with the activities of all the others which have some say in this particular industry. I believe that this industry should stay under the present control, and I believe that in that way the industry can flourish and develop to the benefit of the country.

The discussion to-day in connection with the fishing industry is not only a wholesome one, but is long overdue and very necessary. I think the House agrees that some steps should be taken to look into the conservation of fish and the extension of the territorial boundaries to some distant part of the sea. I am delighted to find that there is such unanimity on this, and therefore, I rise to stake a claim for the great mass of Coloured people whom I respresent, who participate in the industry and to deal with section (c) of the motion, which concerns the granting of licences and quotas.

We know, of course, that the people who catch the fish are the Coloured people, but they do not enjoy the proceeds of their efforts to the extent that they should. I want to make it clear, that I am not speaking in a critical vein. I acknowledge the fact that the Government has given a quota, albeit through the Coloured Development Corporation, to Coloured fishermen and that is, at least, a step forward. But the fact that that quota is only 5,000 cases lobsters out of a total of 344,000 gives one something to think about. That is the figure. Out of 344,000 cases of lobster weighing 6,800,000 lbs., 5,000 went to the Coloured Development Corporation for the benefit of Coloured fishermen. That brings me to the main theme of my remarks, namely that the C.D.C., acting in good faith, decided to farm out its quota. There are Coloured companies which catch fish, expecially rock lobster, which is the field I am discussing now, and they cannot get a quota direct. At first blush it will be said that there may be good reasons for that. I do not know what the reasons are, but the effect is this, and I quote actual cases.

Independent fishermen, fishing for the C.D.C. are paid R40 a crate of 300 lbs. of lobster, which means 100 lbs. of tails, and at the end of the season they get a bonus of R16, making R56 for 100 lbs. of tails. That is not bad; it is certainly much better than it used to be. Other fishermen in the same business who have their own company and who trade with a canning company get R45 for 100 lbs. of tails, and of course they must sell to the company because the company is financing the boat. If we look at the price the lobster fetches eventually on an f.o.b. basis on the world markets, we find that it is between R90 and R100 per 100 lbs. of tails. That is what the person merchandizing it gets. It may be said that as a business man, I should know that there are costs in between, but I do not think it can be advanced as a logical argument, that the difference between R56 and R100, depending on the grade, as the selling price, is a fair margin. Similarly, because of the fact that this particular company—I will not mention names—is a Coloured company, it can sell live lobster in Paris. They have had an offer made by a prominent man with backing from Europe, and they applied for a quota to do so, but were told there was nothing doing. Therefore I make the point, that, if the Coloured man is going to get his share in the fishing industry, this is an aspect which should be looked into. It is unfair to suggest that the thousands of men who are engaged in fishing as a livelihood should get this meagre amount, when they become entrepreneurs or merchandizers of fish which is caught, chilled and sold outside the country. The canning companies—not all, because some are very good—prohibit the private fisherman from fishing, because he occupies a house which they have built, even if he pays his rent. You know, Sir, that along the west coast the determinations of the group areas have not been done, and the local authorities have not set aside housing schemes of their own, so that the housing provided by the canning company is the yardstick by which a private fisherman is permitted to fish. I would be the last to suggest that it is the canning company’s job to provide housing for all and sundry, but if we are going to have this separate development of which we hear so much, then I think the Minister responsible and this Commission, must make recommendations that where Coloured fishermen are engaged in fishing there should be accommodation for them. Also, that there should be wharves at which they can unload and sell their fish.

Then there is the question of chilling facilities. These people are compelled at present, probably because in their case the industry is new and has not been developed to the extent it should be, to work through white owned factories. We concede all that. Nevertheless I think the time is ripe for me to say here, that the prospect of Coloured persons enjoying to the full and sharing in the wealth of the fishing industry is at hand, and that the share that they should have and enjoy should be determined by a commission of the kind envisaged. When one deals with this practically, in the light of the information which comes to representatives like myself, one finds that Coloured people work under tremendous difficulties in this particular field. A simple thing is this. There is no bait. The best bait is frozen pilchards from Walvis Bay. The lobster likes it, but often there is no bait and they must use fish offal and heads obtained from other companies. These things are withheld and the Coloured fisherman is euchred or stymied. I therefore think that this commission is not only a step in the right direction but a move which will redound to the credit of the Government, in that, it will make quite sure that the Coloured people enjoy all the facilities that go with fishing.

I hope I do not get the reply that I got once before which was that there are many Coloured men with boats—we know that— and that they fish on their own account, because we know that too. There is a very lucrative side of the business and that is the one to which I am referring now, where the merchandising of live fish, live lobsters, is being carried out and it is most profitable. But Coloured people cannot get a quota to do this, and I think that it is wrong. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister that, when he is framing the terms of reference of the commission which I hope he will appoint, he will take particular care to see that this aspect of the fishing industry is investigated and that Coloured persons interested in the business will have an opportunity of giving evidence and appearing before the commission and of speaking for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the discussions on the motion before this House to-day, positive suggestions have been made and many useful hints have been given concerning the direction in which this important industry may develop. At present the fishing industry is a very important industry to us and it has developed very rapidly over the past number of years in particular. Mention was made here of the large exports, the increase in catches, etc. I just want to give a brief summary by pointing out that from 1948 to 1964 the tonnage of fish caught increased from 190,000 tons per annum to more than 1½ million tons, as far as South West Africa and the Republic were concerned. As regards processed marine products the value of catches increased from R8 million to nearly R60 million over the same period. A similar increase was experienced as regards pelagic fish and we also find, even as regards whitefish, that there was a very large increase. These increases experienced within the fishing industry over this short period illustrate how much the industry has expanded. At the same time the industry has also served as a source of employment. A great deal of capital has been invested in the industry and it has been a large earner of foreign exchange. We also find that as regards our whitefish, our entire industry has been based to a large extent on pelagic fish or surface fish, such as the sardine and fish of that type. The whitefish industry in particular has grown considerably over recent years. In 1948 the tonnage caught was 46,000 tons and in 1964 it was 106,000 tons. This illustrates how this industry has grown. In view of the fact that the fishing industry is to a large extent an international industry in many countries, one can understand countries which have no fishing waters off their coasts sending vessels thousands of miles to fish and to bring food home for their populations. Ours too was a source which they did not ignore and in course of time they gave it more and more attention. For that reason we found that an ever-increasing number of foreign vessels came to fish in our waters. In the beginning they fished along the Agulhas shelf at all known sources far away from our territorial waters. They fished and even transferred their catches to other vessels to be taken home. They did not make use of our harbour facilities but recently there were attempts to make use of our transshipment facilities. At that stage our South African concerns, even those which do not form part of the fishing industry, were unwilling to offer them freezing facilities. In this way it was made difficult for foreign fishing concerns to make use of local facilities. This did not facilitiate their fishing activities. However, we find that these activities increased a great deal in recent years and that vessels came from Belgium, Hungary, Germany, Ghana, Israel. Japan, Poland, Portugal, Russia and Spain. There was even interest on the part of the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. This had the result that certain of our firms which had profitable markets in other countries came up against competition from other foreign firms which competed on such foreign markets with fish which had been caught near our waters. However, when these vessels too started making use of our harbour facilities, that created problems here for our harbour authorities to provide them with the necessary trans-shipment facilities. In terms of international law it was not always possible for the authorities to refuse them and at the same time, with our limited facilities, it was extremely difficult to provide our own vessels with facilities. Consequently it became necessary to investigate the matter very thoroughly because not only was the concentration beginning to become more heavy but these boats were fishing just beyond the three-mile limit and often came to fish within our territorial waters. As a result instructions were given for this entire matter to be investigated by various Departments, inter alia, the Office of the Prime Minister, the Departments of Transport, Commerce and Industries, Mining, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Customs and Excise, the Defence Force and the South African Police. These Departments jointly ascertained what their powers were to prevent these vessels from entering either our territorial waters or our fishing area, or to prevent the vessels from making use of harbour facilities which they could be denied and what their powers were to introduce patrol services, etc. It was in consequence of this investigation that the Prime Minister issued a statement in November, 1964, in which he pointed out the dangers which were arising and the necessity of protecting our own fishing industry. He pointed out at the time that we had extended our fishing limits to 12 miles the previous year. He referred to the international conference on territorial waters where only one vote was needed for a sufficient majority to increase the international fishing zone to 12 miles. As a result of the activities of foreign vessels, he deemed it necessary to designate special units of the South African Navy and Air Force as a special fishing protection service. The service was to be put into operation immediately and in accordance with international practice, Police, Customs, and Sea Fisheries’ officers, as well as officers of other departments concerned in the matter, were to be appointed members of this special protection service. These measures were therefore taken to prevent operations within our own territorial waters. This led to more effective observations and even to levies being imposed on certain trans-shipment rights. These levies were increased considerably. As a result of representations subsquently received from friendly nations, however, these levies have been suspended. It was decided to ascertain whether a solution could not be found along diplomatic lines and whether it could not be laid down by means of an agreement with other countries what the fishing zone should be and what the closed seasons should be. It was also decided to ascertain to what extent it would be possible to have international co-operation within our own waters so as to counter the catching of our fish to a greater extent. Reference was made here to the extension of the international zone and this is one of the proposals in the motion of the hon. member. He mentioned here that some countries had extended their limits to the continental shelf, that some countries had extended their limits to 100 miles and others to 200 miles. It is true that some countries have done so. Those which have extended their limits to 200 miles are China, Costa Rica, Korea, Peru and El Salvador, for example. Others extended their waters to 130 miles, but you will notice that these are mainly countries in South America and that most of the countries in South America —the Argentine too recently—extended their limits to serve as protection against one another. There it may help but here we are not in the same position. As far as we ourselves are concerned, in spite of the fact that this international conference did not succeed in extending the sea limits to 12 miles, we nevertheless did so in 1963. We did in fact extend our limits and subsequently other countries followed suit and at present there are 66 countries which accept or have already created the 12-mile limit for themselves. There are 41 countries which do not yet accept the 12-mile limit. I think this limit is honoured by most of the countries which fish within our waters. Representations have been made that we should also extend our international territorial waters beyond the six-mile limit, but it is not so easy to do so. Some of the countries fishing in our waters still subscribe to the three-mile limit and they are not prepared to extend it, I think we will all agree that if it were possible for us to do so we would want to do so but then we must know that friendly nations, as well as other countries, would be prepared to recognize such extension, otherwise we could land ourselves in an extremely difficult position. If we extend our international waters and those waters are violated by other powers we must, after all, be prepared to take action. For that reason I do not think that it would be advisable at this stage to extend our international waters beyond the three-mile limit off our own bat.

Our territorial waters are six miles and not three.

I am sorry, six miles. I do not think that it would be advisable to extend our territorial waters to 12 miles. I do not think it would be desirable to do so. Our only alternative is to see whether we cannot come to an agreement with other countries by means of a convention or otherwise. Various international conventions exist. The North-Eastern Atlantic Fisheries Convention on conservation was held in January, 1959. In the beginning there was not a sufficient number of countries which wanted to become members of the convention, but this convention did in fact come into operation in 1963. We are a member of that convention. The convention provides for, inter alia, unilateral conservation measures by a coastal state, if such measures are deemed urgent or essential by such country in the event of negotiations with other fishing states not being brought to an agreement within six months. The fact that we have become a member of the convention proves that we subscribe to the international rules or to international law in this connection and that we are interested in the conservation of these resources of the ocean. In the third place, our membership will afford us a clear opportunity to refuse facilities in our harbours to those countries which do not want to observe reasonable conservation measures. Therefore I think that progress has already been made in this connection.

The hon. member for Simonstown also said that we should see whether we could not form our own conventions. I think it is important to point out that before one can consider entering into conventions with other countries, there should be sufficient research. We must be in a position where we have the information relating thereto at our disposal. It is in this very connection that we are co-operating even with other states in so far as conducting research in connection with our deep-sea resources is concerned. When we take this matter further there will be the opportunity and the possibility of finding common grounds as far as entering into conventions or coming to an understanding is concerned. You can be assured, because this threat still exists, not so much within our waters but beyond the 12-mile limit, that endeavours will continue to be made to arrive at agreements in this field.

The hon. member also asked for a commission. Other members also referred to that, I want to refer him to a speech made by my predecessor when he replied to the hon. member for Moorreesburg on 16th September last year and said (Hansard, Vol. 17, col. 2304)—

Possible terms of reference have been asked for since that time. Certain terms of reference have been drawn up, but I do not want to go into that matter now. At the moment I cannot even say what all those terms of reference are I nevertheless want to furnish the reasons. I can tell the hon. member for South Coast that one of them relates to what steps can be taken for expediting the development of the fishing industry on the south and east coasts. I think this will set his mind at ease as far as that is concerned. There are also reasons as regards conservation, etc. These proposals are comprehensive but we felt that there were certain other aspects which had to be taken into account. We must also afford the industry an opportunity of making their suggestions. Then too scientists will make other suggestions. We feel that such an investigation will be very closely linked with an investigation in South West Africa. As you know South West Africa is at present engaged in such an investigation. It is advisable for us to wait for the findings of that commission before we proceed any further with our own. I also feel that in appointing a commission such as this we should negotiate with South West Africa to see to what extent there can be co-ordination. For this reason too we should wait for their report. I understand that they have already made a great deal of progress. To-day’s discussions will assist to a large extent in making the terms of reference of this commission, in respect of which we all agree, as comprehensive as possible in the interests of the fishing industry as a whole.

I also want to point out that investigations up to now have indicated, particularly in the rock lobster industry, that there are newcomers to the industry. First I want to deal with those trading in this country. I shall presently say more about the others. People who catch rock lobsters and deal in rock lobsters in this country do not need to have a permit or quota to do so, It is clear that there are newcomers who are very active particularly along our coastline here. As a result of that it was felt that certain additional measures of control must be applied. For that reason consideration is being given to prohibiting the use of ocean-bed trawling nets within a distance of five miles from the coastline within the area which extends from Cape Point to the Orange River Mouth. Further consideration is being given to prohibiting commercial catching methods which do not take place from vessels of any description and consideration is even being given to a regulation in respect of escape holes so as to ensure that rock lobsters which are shorter than 3½ inches will be able to escape. These are steps which are being considered.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the composition of the labour force. Rock lobster quotas are awarded annually. It is the policy to award no new rock lobster quotas but to renew them annually. In this way rock lobster quotas for this year have been renewed and they will likewise be renewed during this year. The information was also contained in a written reply to a question put to-day, Therefore it is not the intention to give any consideration whatsoever to increasing the rock lobster quotas. From the figures regarding labourers employed in the rock lobster industry, I notice that on the west coast in particular several thousands of Bantu are employed. In the light of the policy which was also discussed here to-day in another debate, I feel that the time has arrived for the fishermen in the rock lobster industry to see to it that their labour policy is brought more into line with the Government’s policy. There are concerns on the west coast which employ Coloured labour exclusively. Then there are others which practically pay no attention to making proper provision for Coloureds and Bantu in their employ. If, as a result of conservation measures which must be applied, it should appear that there has to be some curtailment, I want to say at this stage already that that will be a factor to which we will not be able to close our eyes, because it is a matter of policy.

Mention was made here of the important research which is being conducted. As far as the fishing industry is concerned, I want to emphasize that research has been extended to a marked degree. There is for example the Oceanographic Research Group of the C.S.I.R. in Durban which was established in 1954 and extended in 1960. There is the Oceanographic Research Institute of Durban which was established in 1960. There is the Department of Ichthyology at the University of Rhodes. The Navy has a hydrographic office at Simonstown. Then there is the Naval Oceanographic Research Unit of the Navy. We also have the museums. There is, too, the Oceanographic Section of the University of Cape Town, the Fisheries Development Corporation and the Sea Fisheries Division in Cape Town. In addition we have the South African National Committee for Oceanographic Research. I mention these bodies in order to illustrate that there are numerous bodies which conduct independent research as far as the ocean is concerned. It was said here that we should not regard the ocean as a source of fish only but that we should also have regard to all the other assets in the ocean. As regards this large variety, I feel that our national effort, both as regards man-power and funds in so far as the marine industry as a whole is concerned, is being wasted because proper coordination does not exist.

In view of the fact that pleas have been made for more oceanographic research, I find it appropriate to refer to a resolution taken last week in respect of research, not only fish research, but research in all spheres. The scientific division of the Department of Planning under Dr. Mönnig was instructed to create various co-ordinating committees in an attempt to co-ordinate our scientific efforts. This will include, inter alia, the geopraphical and environmental sciences, the biological sciences, the physical and industrial sciences, and the medical sciences. The entire marine industry falls under the biological sciences. As far as the marine industry is concerned, it has therefore been decided to co-ordinate all research which is being conducted in this regard. Therefore I hope that our own efforts will be integrated with this more embracing national effort. I do not want to go into details of what our own fishing industry itself is contemplating as regards research. I refer to a long and impressive research programme of South West Africa which was submitted to the previous Minister of Economic Affairs when he negotiated with South West Africa on fishing matters. I may also inform you that the Fisheries Development Advisory Council recently recommended the increase of the industry’s contribution to research. The industry agrees to make a larger contribution. The State too has made ever-increasing contributions to research in this connection, because we realize that research is a basic essential, not only for tracing new sources of fish but also for greater knowledge about the habits of fish and for encouraging us to investigate new directions, such as shrimps for instance. I believe that research will play a major role in the future, as it did in the past, both as regards our conservation and our extension.

The hon. member for Karoo referred to certain awards in so far as Coloureds were concerned. The fact is that when the awards were made—and the awards were few in number—they were made to people who were engaged in the rock lobster industry. All the companies to which awards were made have a long history in respect of contributions made to the catching of rock lobster. At that stage there was no application from or claim on the part of Coloured entrepreneurs. It was then decided to make an award of 5,000 cases to the Coloured Development Corporation which award was to be exploited to the benefit of the Coloureds engaged in that industry. The Coloured Development Corporation does not fall under this ministry but I may inform hon. members that it caused that quota to be exploited by others to the benefit of the Corporation. At present there are considerable funds which are available for this purpose. They assisted Coloureds with boats. As regards its own contribution to this quota, it even offered them a larger bonus than that offered to Whites. A White was stationed at Lambert’s Bay for the very purpose of assisting with organizing to give the Coloureds a larger share. They are looking for a suitable harbour. They have made representations for a fishmeal quota to be awarded to Coloureds. The possibility of an own harbour or place where they as Coloureds may make further progress in the industry is being examined and was discussed at the last meeting of the Fisheries Development Corporation.

The hon. member referred to certain existing problems and I think these are problems which basically can be solved by him through the Coloured Development Corporation in the interests of the Coloureds. It is indeed true that if the Corporation itself were to export it would perhaps be able to make larger profits. When the day arrives that it exploits a larger quota or gives the Coloureds a larger share therein, it will be more to their advantage. The idea behind it all was to give the Coloureds a more active role in the lobster industry. With the establishment or extension of fishmeal licences a share therein was given to the Corporation as was given to other companies in the fishing industry.

As far as live rock lobster is concerned, I just want to say that certain companies were given the right to export live rock lobster. No new quotas, however, were awarded for that, They could only exploit existing quotas. Therefore the right to export live rock lobster did not entail the award of further quotas and no larger catches were approved.

The hon. member for Green Point asked what the conditions of rock lobster awards were. He mentioned some of the conditions, namely that they must sell through Safroc and that there may be no alienation without consent. That provision was specially introduced because there was a large measure of consolidation in respect of earlier rock lobster quotas. There was such a large measure of consolidation that one group held nearly 70 per cent of all rock lobster quotas. It was to counter that trend in particular that this small group of quotas had been awarded. In addition it was small quotas which they received. Leave was granted for the transfer of one quota. These particulars were also furnished to-day. You will realize, however, Mr. Speaker, that we have problems. It is possible for one to make such a provision but there are of these companies which are quoted on the Stock Exchange and it is impossible to impose a restriction on the transfer of shares. The provision is there, however, to try to counter the large-scale consolidation of quotas as far as possible.

The hon. member also referred to the question of tenders. I do not know what will happen if there is a possibility of a further licence and tenders are invited. It is clear that if tenders were invited they would go to the larger groups who are well provided with capital. The approach throughout has been to give the fishermen in the fishing industry a share in it as well. It has not always been possible to do so, They did not always have the necessary capital at their disposal. Particularly where we are now entering new fields, in so far as factory-ships are concerned, it has not always been possible to that extent. The hon. member, in consequence of the latest awards, referred, without mentioning names, to a concern which had a rock lobster quota and which did not have any other quota. I presume that he was referring to a certain concern on the west coast. The fact of the matter is that it was laid down in the award made—when three awards were made on the recommendation of the Fisheries Development Advisory Council—that that company, apart from its own members—because the vast majority of its own members are people who are fishermen—also had to make provision for other applicants in the vicinity who had claims. That was investigated very thoroughly and this step was taken because there are so many individual fishermen in that company and so many others who were individual applicants at first but became associated with the company in the course of time.

I think that as far as the fishing industry is concerned we find ourselves in the position that we must also accept the challenge as regards the presence of foreign vessels in our own waters. This matter is creating problems for South West Africa and is still under discussion. I nevertheless feel that if we ourselves, like other countries do not sail further out into the ocean in larger vessels and fish new grounds —and reference has been made here, inter alia, to the South Pole—then we shall tend to fall behind other countries in this sphere of the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speeches made by hon. members, and I want to thank all of them sincerely for taking part in this debate. I also want to thank the hon. Minister concerned for his full replies to the points raised here, Nevertheless I have to express the fear that hon. members do not realize the seriousness of the decrease in catches, especially the decrease in the pilchard catches, in South Africa. I am, of course, a little disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to appoint a commission at this stage or to extend the limit of our territorial waters.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this motion has received wide support in this House and under these circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my motion.