Mr. Speaker, I just wish to announce a few particulars of the business of this House. Today this House will discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Next week the Education and Training Vote will be discussed by a Standing Committee in the Senate Chamber. For the rest, legislation will be disposed of during the discussion of Votes, at intervals which the House finds convenient.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to make a statement on a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament to amend the Constitution, which will be held next week. After consultation through the usual channels the programme will be as follows:

Tuesday, 20 May:

Prior to the commencement of business in the two Houses, the Prime Minister will convey a Message convening a Joint Sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly to Mr. President and Mr. Speaker.

The Bill in question will be made available to members on Tuesday.

Wednesday, 21 May at 10h00:

The first meeting of the Joint Sitting will take place in the Chamber of the House of Assembly to agree to the Rules for the Sitting, which will have been distributed on Tuesday. The Prime Minister will then give notice of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Fourth Amendment Bill.

Normally these proceedings only take a few minutes.

Thursday, 22 May at 10h00 to 12h30:

All the stages of the Bill will be taken on this day.

I should like to thank the Party Whips in both Houses most sincerely for their cooperation in making these arrangements possible.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few announcements I should like to make to this House. This is why I have risen at the very beginning of the discussion on this Vote. Before I proceed to do so, however, I first wish to thank and pay tribute to all my predecessors for the contributions they have made over the years to this, one of the oldest State departments in our Government system.

As hon. members know, my late father also handled this portfolio. For this reason it is an even greater privilege for me to be able to serve in this capacity as well. However, I am addressing my remarks today more specifically to my immediate predecessor, the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization, formerly the Minister of Mines, as the department was known during his term of office, from January 1976 to June 1979, and the hon. the Minister of Industries and of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, as well as the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who handled the portfolio of Environmental Planning and Energy during the periods from the beginning of 1976 to the end of 1978 and from the end of 1978 to June 1979 respectively.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization showed a special understanding of mining and the mining industry, and will be remembered in particular for the timeous provision of the necessary infrastructure which made the establishment of mining activities in the North-Western Cape a reality, to the great advantage of our country.

My other two colleagues whom I have mentioned worked with great zeal to inform the general public and to make it aware of the question of energy in the national economy and of the central role it plays there, and they were very successful in co-ordinating some facets affecting energy matters in the government sector.

Then I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity of conveying my sincere thanks to all the officials of the department for the service each of them has rendered over the past year. In particular, I want to express my appreciation for the valuable and faithful service rendered by the late Mr. W. P. Viljoen and the late Dr. C. van M. Brink to the State, and more particularly to this department. The late Mr. Viljoen had been in the service of the Department of Mines for 43 years when his health forced him to retire on 31 January 1980, after five years and two months as Secretary to the department. In spite of his poor health during the last years of his period of service, he always put his task as departmental head first. He will be remembered for the unselfish and outstanding way in which he served the department and the State over such a long period.

The late Dr. Brink was a valued member of the Energy Policy Committee from August 1977 up to his death this year, and made an extremely important contribution in the field of research in particular. He was also the chairman of the National Energy Research Committee since its inception in August 1978, in which capacity he also had a special responsibility for the co-ordination of research work in the energy field. After his appointment as president of the CSIR in 1971, Dr. Brink served on the Atomic Energy Board, as well as on the Control Board of the National Institute for Metallurgy. His contribution with regard to these objectives of the Government can hardly be estimated at its true value, and on behalf of the Government and of this department I should like to pay tribute to a man who put his very great scientific knowledge and abilities at the disposal of his country and his people unselfishly and unreservedly, as also appears from his membership of the many other bodies on which I know he also made a major contribution in the national interest.

Then we also think today of some other senior officials who have retired after a lifetime of service. Mr. Neville Orsmond retired from the service on 31 July 1979 after 31 years’ service. He rose from the lowest rung in the mining industry, that of apprentice mine-worker, to one of the two highest positions in the former Department of Mines, i.e. that of Government Mining Engineer. I thank him for the outstanding way in which he did his work throughout his career.

We welcome to our midst our new Director-General of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Mr. S. J. P. du Plessis, and we also welcome, in his new capacity, Dr. W. L. van Wyk, former Director of Geological Survey, who succeeded the late Mr. Viljoen as Secretary on 1 February 1980 and who has occupied the position of Deputy Director General since 1 April 1980. We also welcome Mr. J. G. Kirchner, who has been appointed Government Mining Engineer, as well as Mr. L. N. J. Engelbrecht, who has been promoted to Director of Geological Survey. I believe that with this new team in the top management, and with the others who are already there, we shall have no problems in the future, because we have the right leadership material to meet the responsibilities of this department in the best way in the interests of South Africa.

Now I should like to make a few announcements regarding the effect which the rationalization of the Public Service will have on the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

As appears from its name, the role of the new Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs is of a dual nature. The Commission for Administration briefly describes this role as follows: Firstly, it has to see to the administration of the mining industry and the mineral resources of the RSA to the greatest advantage of the country, and secondly, it is responsible for the whole spectrum of energy affairs, from the identification of needs to the taking of measures to ensure that the country’s energy requirements are constantly satisfied. Of course, the most important respect in which the rationalization process affects the department is the addition and expansion of the energy function. The purpose of this is to ensure that the authorities will give attention to the energy requirements and problems of the country on a co-ordinated basis. This addition took place with effect from 1 March 1980, when the name of the Department of Mining was changed into that of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

Since South Africa’s own sources of energy will at this stage, and for many years to come, be dependent mainly on minerals, the linking of the two is actually a logical step. Essential information concerning coal, South Africa’s primary source of energy, was already available in the Department of Mines, as well as the expertise to ensure maximum exploitation. The closest cooperation is already taking place between the Energy branch and the other branches of the department, including the Geological Survey Office, which has basic information available about mineral resources and keeps it up to date, the Mineral Bureau, with its sophisticated means of collecting and processing data and of doing project studies, as well as the Office of the Government Mining Engineer. In this way, the necessary coordination is ensured and duplication is eliminated. However, the Energy branch cannot be regarded merely as an appendage of Mineral Affairs. Therefore it will have to be developed and expanded into a separate unit, because it will also have to give attention to different sources of energy, such as hydro-electricity, solar energy, ethanol and battery power, etc.

Because the process of rationalization has wider implications and is also intended to link up semi-Government institutions with the various new Government departments in a more effective way, the Unking up of all the energy-producing and the energy-supplying semi-Government institutions with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs is receiving attention at the moment. Here we are thinking of bodies and funds such as Sasol, SOF (Pty.) Limited, the SFF Association, the Equalization Fund and various inter-state and other committees and bodies which are concerned, among other things, with the financing and construction of oil-from-coal installations, the stock-piling of crude oil, the creation of stock-piling facilities, compensation to oil companies in respect of purchases of crude oil with a view to purchase price stabilization, and the arrangement of a common fuel price between the countries in Southern Africa that are dependent on the RSA for fuel supplies. Of course, there are also Escom and the Electricity Supply Board, which are concerned with the supply of electricity. All these institutions and related bodies and funds, as well as the administration of the legislation regulating them, which presently falls under the Department of Industries, will be integrated with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs as from 1 June 1980. Finality has not yet been reached about what function modules in respect of conservation measures, the rationalization plan and the fixing of the price of petroleum products, as well as aspects affecting the exportation and the rationalization of the retail distribution of coal, will be transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. It is believed that it will be possible to implement these transfers on 1 August, but in any case no later than 1 October 1980.

Of course, the original proposal regarding rationalization affects the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs in yet another respect. Other modules are also at issue, including occupational safety control, mining occupational disease examinations, mining occupational disease compensation and mine dust control. For several reasons, it has not yet been possible to take a final decision concerning these modules, and talks are being held about them at the moment, in which the mining industry is also participating. It is likely that greater clarity will be obtained before long.

Then I should like to announce, regarding the activities in connection with nuclear aspects, that the Cabinet has given its approval for the appointment of a committee consisting of Dr. A. J. A. Roux as chairman, Dr. R. L. Straszacker, Mr. J. J. Kitshoff and Mr. C. J. F. Human, to inquire into and report on the desirability or otherwise of (a) the restructuring of nuclear activities in the country carried out with public funds, and the nature of changes to be effected in order to ensure an efficient organization, and (b) the elimination of the salary disparity between employees in the institutions involved, as well as between the bodies and comparable Government and semi-Government institutions, and methods by which this can be achieved. Where necessary, the committee will perform its functions in co-operation with the Commission for Administration and other Government departments and bodies.

Finally, while I am on my feet and this is the first time I am handling the discussion of this Vote, I should like to say one thing by way of introduction, without in any way anticipating the discussion. In doing so, I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister said during the discussion of his Defence Vote. He made the following statement, inter alia, and I quote (Hansard, 1980, col. 5297)—

From the point of view of this department, this statement by the hon. the Prime Minister can be proved with chapter and verse. I do not want to bore hon. members with statistics and strings of facts, but I can assure them that from intensive investigations, conducted by the Ministerial Bureau, it is crystal clear that South Africa is of crucial importance to the economy of most Western countries, and furthermore, that in many cases we also supply by far the greatest percentage of some minerals and metals to certain countries, minerals which those countries themselves consider to be of strategic importance to them. These facts are underlined by a 45% increase from 1978 to 1979 in our exportation of minerals and processed mineral products to more than 90 countries, a phenomenal increase in spite of a deterioration of the world economy and the fact that the major mineral consumer countries are trying hard to diversify their sources of supply. Since South Africa’s minerals are of the utmost importance to the West, I think that our debate today should not be devoted exclusively to internal matters affecting mineral and energy affairs.

I think it is also necessary that a clear warning should be sounded from this House to our friends in the West, and the warning I want to sound is that anyone who thinks that peace between the population groups in South Africa, peace which we are all anxiously striving for and wish to promote, is the only prerequisite for ready access to our mineral resources, is making a great mistake. Of course it is important, but what is also necessary is a real understanding of the seriousness of other threats which may influence the accessibility of our resources. In this connection I wish to refer to an interview which the journalist John D’Oliveira had with Igor Glagolev earlier this year.

†Igor Glagolev, who is described as having been, until October 1976, a respected senior research member of the prestige USSR Academy of Science and adviser on foreign affairs and SALT to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as well as a foreign affairs consultant to the Soviet Communist Party Polit Bureau, had this to say to D’Oliveira—

This Government has time and again warned in this regard, and will continue to point out that the disruption of stability in South Africa, with a view to gaining direct or indirect control over our mineral resources, is the main aim of Russian strategy in Southern Africa. We do not ask of our friends in the West that they should agree with everything we are doing in South Africa. But we do ask them to recognize the real enemy and to ensure an atmosphere, internationally, towards South Africa which will enable us to continue pumping the life-blood which they need into their factories, furnaces and power plants. I hope the Opposition parties will give their support to this warning, to this request, with greater urgency than they have displayed in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I begin by welcoming the hon. the Minister to this new and increasingly important portfolio. He has shown his ability in other portfolios to do well in the administration of the affairs for which he is responsible. There is probably no portfolio of greater potential significance to South Africa’s future security and economic prosperity than that of Mineral and Energy Affairs, as I shall demonstrate shortly. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of its importance and will bring to it the talent he has already displayed.

I also associate myself with the tributes and condolences which the hon. the Minister has extended regarding Mr. Viljoen and Dr. Van der Merwe Brink. I also associate myself with the welcome accorded to new officials and the thanks and good wishes expressed to those who are leaving.

Lastly, still in the realm of tributes, it would be amiss of me not to express appreciation for the quality of the report published by the Department of Mines. We have received other reports in the past sometimes with less enthusiasm. But this is certainly a most comprehensive and timely report and as such a very useful adjunct to the debate to be conducted today. I hope that at the time of the next debate on the Vote of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs we shall have a companion piece from the Energy Affairs Division of the department. We obviously did not expect that on this occasion.

The hon. the Minister has referred to various matters relating to the co-ordination of the department. I want to say at once how pleased we are that the steps which, as the hon. the Minister will know, we have been urging from these benches over quite a few years, are now being realized. We do not necessarily wish to take the credit for this, but we do believe that this is a step in the right direction and one which we have always believed is essential in view of the significance of the topics which we deal with under this heading. I believe that the further steps which the hon. the Minister has indicated will take place in July and August, also are necessary if there is to be proper co-ordination. I believe that it would in fact be necessary for the department to take into its purview, into its control and administrative authority, the additional functions which have hitherto been under the Department of Industries, because it is very difficult to exercise full authority over a field as broad and interlinking as that of energy unless it falls comprehensively under one control. By way of compensation, one may perhaps suggest that there are certain aspects of the works of the old Department of Mines relating mainly to the medical benefits, social benefits and the administration of matters such as workmen’s compensation and other special provisions which applied to the Department of Mines, which could logically and rationally in a time of rationalization perhaps be transferred to the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare, with advantage to the streamlining effect which the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to achieve.

Before I go on to other matters, I want to refer very briefly to the hon. the Minister’s appeal that we in the Opposition should also express our support for the idea that South Africa is a major supplier of strategic materials to the West and that the cessation of supply, or the interruption of supply, is not merely a matter of maintaining good race relations, but also a matter of being able to provide a proper defence against imperialistic threats from abroad. We are, of course, prepared to associate ourselves with this fully. We would, however, add this rider, and I believe the Government should have no difficulty in supporting us in respect of this rider, and that is that our ability to defend ourselves with support of our allies against imperialistic threats would be strengthened also in proportion to the extent that we are able to solve our internal racial relations.

In other words, the two are interdependent. It is not one or the other or the one being more important than the other. I believe that the threat which is posed finds us correspondingly more vulnerable as our race relations worsen, and correspondingly more fortified, more strongly defensible as our race relations improve. I think we should always in our relations remember that the two are interdependent and that if we grow weak or inadequate in the handling of our race relations, we become more vulnerable to imperialistic threats and an attractive target to those who may wish to take over our wealth.

Having said that, I want to deal with a few more specific matters in respect of the provision of mines. In looking at the report and in casting back our thoughts to the year which has just passed by, we find that the most striking thing obviously is the outstanding contribution made to the South African economy by the gold-mining industry. It contributed a record figure, of very nearly R6 000 million, to the South African economy, of which no less than R2 000 million was paid out in wages and salaries. This is a colossal contribution and an enormous stimulus to the economy and growth of South Africa. But this great achievement does not altogether overshadow the achievements in certain other sectors of the mining industry. If we look at the coal industry, we see that it produced sales of the order of R1 000 million. Diamonds and ferro-alloys produced sales of the order of around R500 million each. These are colossal sums and a colossal contribution. When all is taken together, we find that the contribution of the mining industry to South Africa in terms of money is of the order of R10 000 million. It is interesting that in the case of diamonds and ferro-alloys, they are almost entirely of use to South Africa as foreign currency earners. Practically all the money they earn has been earned abroad. I think it would be wrong to neglect the importance of coal as an earner of foreign currency, not merely in respect of the export of coal itself, but also indirectly in that coal is a producer of energy which enables the other forms of mining to take place. As a form of cheap energy compared with other countries in the world, it in fact puts us in a highly competitive position. In that way coal makes a double contribution to the exports of South Africa. I think that this is particularly striking in the case of the ferro-alloys where it is precisely because of the availability of cheap electricity derived from coal in South Africa that we are in so strong a competitive position in the world markets for ferro-alloys.

I think it would be appropriate to look more closely at the role of coal as a direct export commodity as well. It is often suggested in argument and in debate in this country that it is wrong to have coal exports, to sell our coal abroad, because of the diminution of reserves which we will need for the future. The fact is that coal exports have rescued the coal industry and have converted a Cinderella industry into a very flourishing, modern, technically developed industry. This is of vital importance if we are going to make proper use of coal as a major energy source in the future. Figures show that in the past year we exported 23 million tons of coal for an amount of R509 million, which suggests an average price of R22 per ton. Our local sales were of the order of 74 million tons for R634 million, which suggests an average price of R8 per ton. We are therefore having our cake and eating it, in a sense, because, by selling coal locally for R8 per ton, we are permitting the production of comparatively cheap electricity and we are in fact keeping the wheels of industry spinning with a competitive advantage in terms of exports.

All this is now being achieved without the coal industry running down, as happened in the past, because there is an extra profit coming in; something like one-quarter is causing exchange abroad at prices nearly three times the local price. It is very largely this money that has enabled the South African coal industry to make the additional contribution to exploring, improving, investing and achieving technical improvements. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no fault to find with the speech of the hon. member for Constantia. I think that the hon. the Minister will reply to his speech at length. Allow me too to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his new post. I can tell him that I worked with his late father for many years in this regard and that he always inspired and assisted me with the problems of the miners at the time. Therefore, I want to wish the hon. the Minister every blessing and progress in this important office. I shall spend a little more time on this later.

I also want to congratulate Dr. Van Wyk, the new Director-General, on his appointment. I know he accomplished good work in the geological department and I also want to wish him everything of the best in this important post. To our outgoing secretary Mr. Viljoen, whom I have known for many years, I just want to say that I hope and trust that all will go well for him too. He put everything he had into this post, but unfortunately he was unable to continue because of ill-health. We pray that he will still be spared for many years and that he will make a complete recovery.

The Mineral and Energy Affairs portfolio is probably one of the most important for our country. There is no other sector in our country that can earn as many millions of rands as the mineral sector. The sum that we received over the past years for selling our minerals, amounts to approximately R10 000 million, and this is a huge sum. The revenue which the State receives from that, is very large. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech, it is therefore not of great importance to South Africa alone, but to the entire world. The world, particularly the Western nations, cannot manage without many of these minerals. They are just as dependent on them as we are. Therefore, I hope and trust that in future they will take more note of the fact that South Africa can provide for the needs of the Western nations. All we are asking them, as the hon. the Minister said, is to reach out a friendly hand to us.

Today, I just want to dwell briefly on that fine uranium complex which has been built in Stilfontein. It is a complex to the value of about R70 million to R80 million. It is essential for such a large project to be built in that area which is so rich in uranium deposits. Apart from the fact that it provides employment to so many people, it also provides the State with a tremendous income. Uranium is one of those minerals or substances which the world is in great need of. After coal, uranium is most probably going to be one of the largest sources of energy which this country has. That is why I am grateful that we in the Western Transvaal have such a wonderful, huge project.

We have the report of the department in front of us, and I should like to pay tribute to the geological division today. The men in that division are those who will have to do the reconnaissance work. In my own language I should like to put it as follows: These are the people who will have to investigate the mining areas in South Africa. I say thank you very much for the fine work which the department does. We know that those men are tracing and analysing new mineral fields every day in order to discover what can and cannot be mined. Once again I say thank you very much to those people.

There is another aspect that I just want to mention briefly. The East is endowed with oil, and hon. members know what great problems oil had already caused throughout the world. Oil prices are shooting up, but South Africa is well-endowed with coal. Now I just want to request that we should be frugal with our coal. In saying that, I do not mean that we should not mine it and trade with it, but coal is the black oil of South Africa. If we are so fortunate as to strike oil in the future, then thank the Lord for that. However, if we do not strike oil, we must bear in mind that we have coal which will have to make the biggest contribution towards this country’s energy and fuel requirements in the future.

However, there is something which I find rather upsetting in this report, and this is the tremendous number of accidents which have occurred in the mining industry over the past few years. 563 people were killed last year in accidents in gold mines alone, and 19 308 were injured. I will be excused if I express my sympathy today with regard to the people who died in a mining accident in the Vaal Reefs mine at Orkney not so long ago. Three Whites and 29 non-Whites were killed in that accident, the only one of its kind in mining history. I want to say today that I am sorry about it. I say once again that this accident is the only one of its kind in mining history. This simply proves once again that there is always a first time. Despite all the modern safety measures which are applied daily by the mines, the accident happened in any event. However, this does not mean that the death rate of 563 cannot be drastically reduced. In addition, I want to say that the mining industry is doing everything in its power to make it safe for the worker. If one takes into account the fact that 500 000 people are working in the gold mines alone, it is an achievement, under the conditions in which they are working, that only 563 persons were killed in recent times, and I have just given the reason for the death of 32 of them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am simply rising to offer the hon. miner the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Opposition Whip. I have always been proud of being a miner, because if hon. members look at the results today, they will see that this industry is in fact the goose that lays the golden egg for South Africa.

This department will probably change a great deal in the future. I also want to recommend very strongly today—and I believe that this will in tact happen—that the Department of Health should take over a large share of the functions which still fall under the Department of Mines at the moment, viz. the Bureau for Occupational Diseases and everything related to it. This is a matter that we have been asking for many years, and now it has finally happened. I hope and trust that the miners will accept it as such. After all, this facet should by rights fall under the Department of Health.

Allow me please to come back to the subject of accidents again now. During the past ten years, the use of explosives underground—explosives that are used every day —have caused the deaths of 365 people. It can in fact be alleged that this was due to negligence, or whatever other reason there may be. However, this is not really at issue. The fact is that 365 people were killed in accidents concerning explosives. During the same period 2 390 people were injured in accidents with explosives underground. Therefore, I want to make a request of the hon. the Minister as well as the State Mining Engineer, please to see that drastic steps are taken to eliminate accidents of this nature as far as possible. Unfortunately, it is true that explosives are essential in mining. However, everything possible must be done to make our mines safer for the miners.

Then I want to refer briefly—and I do not want to spend much time on this—to the long-awaited report of the Nieuwenhyzen Commission. Unfortunately we do not have the report at hand today. However, the Nieuwenhuyzen Commission was appointed by the State, under the chairmanship of Prof. Nieuwenhuyzen, to investigate all aspects of diseases in the mining industry. I also want to say thank you to the three hon. members who assisted me when I appeared before that commission. They were the hon. member for Welkom, who is still going to say a great deal about the report, when he returns from the Other Place. When I speak of the Other Place, I do not mean that evil place. I am just talking about the Senate. [Interjections.] Therefore, the hon. member for Welkom will say more about this report at a later stage. My thanks also go to the hon. member for Brakpan, as well as the hon. member for Klerksdorp, who assisted me in drawing up the memorandum which was presented to the commission. I can assure hon. members of one thing. Every hon. member of this House who represents a constituency in which miners live, is always having inquiries from people who are looking forward to the publication of the Nieuwenhuyzen report.

I hope it is going to be a wonderful report. I hope that the report is going to be available as early as the end of June, according to what the hon. the Minister told us. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister consults the abovementioned three hon. members and myself, so that, after the report has been approved by the Cabinet, we can fine-comb the recommendations extensively. We can even do so during the parliamentary recess. This is necessary, because ex-miners and miners in poor health are looking forward to this report. Therefore, I hope that we will be able to do something for them in this regard. However, I am not going to say more on this subject. The hon. member for Welkom will discuss it extensively later on.

My time is very limited, and there is another matter that I should like to discuss briefly. As I am standing here, I am unfortunately suffering tremendous pain. The hon. the Minister is aware of it. It is almost impossible for me to remain upright here. Once again I want to stress the importance of training in mining. There are many large projects that the different big mining companies want to tackle, but due to a shortage of labour in certain branches of the mining industry, they cannot continue with those projects. I want to tell the White miner that the time has come for the Coloured man and the Black man to undergo further training with a view to making this mighty industry the biggest giant in the world. Even though I may be taken to task in political circles about this, I want to tell the White worker that he has already trained the Coloured and Black worker. A few years ago I was almost beheaded when I issued a warning against this. The former Minister is well aware of this.

We must train the people. However, I want to say that they have already been trained to a large extent. I want to put it clearly now that I am not asking for a blasting certificate to be issued to the Black man in South Africa, my homeland. I say “no”.

Why not?

He can obtain it in his own country, where there are also very large mines.

What about Bophuthatswana?

The hon. member is referring to Bophuthatswana. I have no objection to him making progress in the mining industry in his own country, even becoming a mine manager. In this country the White miner is still protected. Of course, I am completely in favour of the Black miner undergoing further training in other facets of the mining industry. I just want to tell that hon. member that one miner with a blasting certificate can keep 1 000 Black miners or any other workers busy for a full day. One does not have to give each one a blasting certificate. I say once again that the large mining companies are being short-circuited with regard to some big projects that they want to tackle, but do not have the manpower for, and I am therefore in favour of the Coloured man and the Black man being used to an increasing extent in the mining industry in many cases.

I want to conclude by saying thank you to the group which has assisted me as chairman of the mining group of the NP for many years already. I want to wish God’s blessings upon the young members who have joined us. It is not the biggest group in the House of Assembly, but it is a very pleasant one. My ruling is—and whether the Whips approve of it or not, it does not matter—that if an hon. member speaks during this vote this year, he does not have an opportunity to speak next year, because we believe that every member of this group should have an opportunity to make a speech within a two year period.

Mr. Chairman, it is always a very pleasant task to speak immediately after the hon. member for Stilfontein. One can always rely on him to make an interesting and stimulating speech. We agree, of course, with many of the matters he raised. There are certain aspects, though, for example the question of the utilization of manpower in the mining industry, on which we could debate all day and all week long, but unfortunately the time for this debate is very limited and I shall not be able to react directly to what the hon. member for Stilfontein said in this regard.

†On behalf of the NRP we should also like to welcome the hon. the Minister in this portfolio and to wish him well. We also associate ourselves fully with the good wishes and comments he had to make about the new Director-General and the other members of his staff. We also fully associate ourselves with the tributes and good wishes which go out to all these people who are involved in probably one of the most important portfolios in South African trade affairs.

I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister raised the question here today of our mineral resources and our strategy towards other countries throughout the Western World and in the Third World nations as well. I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister has raised this issue, because if one examines trade practices in international relations and customs, conventions, and the attitudes which countries had in the past—I refer here particularly to the industrialized Western nations—then one detects over the past 10 years a considerable change in the rules of the game. We in South Africa in particular must take cognizance of the realities of just what has happened in the change of the rules of the game internationally, with specific reference to trade practices and what the meaning and significance thereof is for South Africa. We read daily about boycotts against South Africa, recommendations of boycotts, partial boycotts and full boycotts, as a means to coerce us to change our internal strategy. But it is not only South Africa which has become involved in this new international conspiracy. We know the history of what happened in Rhodesia. We see unfolding in front of us the tragedy of Iran and the Middle East. But it would indeed be foolish if we neglected to take cognizance of the importance of the rules of the game in international trade and political relations. I think it is agreed upon by all hon. members that it will be necessary for South Africa to develop a total strategy in respect of our mineral resources, coupled to our international relations as well. I would go further than the hon. the Minister in his warning to other nations to take cognizance of our relevance and significance to their own well-being, and in many cases their very survival. I would like to go further and say that we also extend an invitation to those countries, whether they be Third World African countries or highly industrialized nations of the Western world, i.e. to share with us the benefits of the beneficiation of our mineral wealth in South Africa, to share with us in promoting the well-being, the peace and prosperity of all the nations of the world. I refer here specifically to the fact that in the new world strategy it can fully be expected that minerals will replace military action as a coercive agent. We shall find that goods replace guns in terms of foreign aid and aid to other nations. There can be no doubt that food and fuel will replace foreign aid in terms of its cash and services. This is what the new game is about internationally. The USSR can provide dependent nations and developing nations with no more than potential revolution and military hardware. But a nation that can provide a developing neighbour with the means of food production and industrial development—and that means fuel or food—will in fact go further in its international relations than those countries which can only provide military hardware. Under these circumstances we find South Africa to be in the unique position to play a positive role in bringing stability in particular to the Southern African continent. I should therefore like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist in every way by means of his attitude, by means of the strategy which he has outlined today about his plans for the future, for us to reconsider our mineral strategy in order to husband our very vital resources. One reads with a certain amount of dismay that the 23 million tons of coal exported by South Africa was not only purchased at one of the lowest prices internationally by the USA, but also that our vital coal resources are being burnt up in thermal power-stations in the United States, a very inefficient use indeed or that black diamond of South Africa.

One also reads with interest an article which appeared in The Star of 28 April 1980. I read from an extract reproduced in Spectrum that the Royal Dutch Shell Group in Holland is going to start producing fuel from coal along the lines of a Sasol-type project. That coal is going to come from South Africa. We must husband our resources and must consider, as part of our total strategy, the beneficiation of our mineral resources in South Africa rather than the export of the raw material. That ought to be our strategy of the future. Let us build more Sasols. Let us build Sasols 4, 5 and 6. I invite other nations to invest their capital in South Africa in order to produce the end product rather than to take the raw material only. Let the USA put capital into Sasols 4 and 5 for us and let them help us with the employment of the unemployed in South Africa. Let us then build a pipeline, like an artery from the heart, right up the ridge of Africa. Let us pump fuel into Africa and give them the opportunity to produce food for themselves. Let us help them to help themselves and let us take the artery from the industrial heart of Africa, South Africa, and push that fuel pipeline right into Africa. Let us invite those people who run refineries at present, like the Dutch, who are going to use our coal to produce their own fuel in Holland where they have a shortage of manpower. Countries like West Germany have to import two million Gastarbeiter to help them because of their shortage of manpower. Why is it not possible for those countries to invest in South Africa’s industrial infrastructure so that we can beneficiate our own raw materials in order to benefit our own local population as well as our African neighbours to the north of us. This is the strategy we must employ, not only for coal, but also for gold. Let us have a greater beneficiation of our own raw materials rather than export our future heritage. This is where South Africa can really score in international relations. Africa is starving. The economies of the under-developed countries are being undermined and are degenerating. One has only to look at the examples of Zambia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, in fact wherever one goes these people require help. We can help them if they will co-operate with us. Let us ask countries like the USA, West Germany and Britain to think of the real requirements of developing countries when they grant them foreign aid. They must think of the need for food and fuel in Africa. Let us invite those countries to invest in South Africa so that our neighbours can have permanent benefit, not only from the cash provided by industrialization, but also by the goodwill and co-operation of South Africa which is so vital, with our local knowledge of African conditions, to give them real value for money.

Let us go one step further and ask the developing nations to invest in schemes such as Sasols 4 and 5. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North delivered a particularly interesting speech and he mentioned certain interesting facts and ideas, to which the hon. the Minister is sure to reply. I congratulate him on his speech.

I want to express a few ideas about the practical situation of the miner. I want to quote a few things to the benefit of the miners in a very sincere way, which, as we are all inclined to do, are often overlooked because one is accustomed to them. On the other hand, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister certain matters which cause many problems for the miner these days. I want to begin by saying that I am quite aware that the State does not employ the miners. One often overlooks this, and so do the employees in the mining industry. Then I want to argue that although this is the case, it is true that it would be wrong for any Government not to give special attention to the working conditions of the people in that industry too, because of the important, strategic value of this industry. For various reasons it is essential for the Republic of South Africa to have a flourishing economy, particularly with a view to its policy and its position in the world situation. Fortunately, when it comes to minerals, we have been blessed with a very rich country, and the hon. member for Stilfontein referred to this. It is also true that we have been blessed with private initiative to utilize these minerals. However, it is also true that even if we had both these components and did not have the labour force, we would have been unable to achieve anything either. That is why labour as such is of cardinal importance. I think that South Africa can only utilize the full potential of the mineral riches that it has been given, if labour peace prevails and if the labour corps is also satisfied. That is why everything possible must be done to make our miners happy. It is the task of the Government to ensure as far as possible that the conditions of service of the miners receive attention and that they measure up to the very important industry that employs them.

The miner is fortunate in the sense that his job provides him with special benefits. Without going into detail, I can mention their fringe benefits briefly. They receive subsidized housing and to a large extent, free water and electricity. Their basic salary is increased by an average of 13,5% during the course of the year. Their vacation bonus amounts to a double salary cheque, as is the case in the Public Service in general. The split shift allowance has been increased from R22 to R40 per month. Death benefits have been increased from R5 000 to R10 000. However, in all fairness, I must say that the contribution of members has been increased from R2,75 to R4,75 per person per month. Furthermore, pensioners no longer contribute towards the death benefits, but nevertheless are still entitled to a death benefit of R2 200. The pensions of pensioners who received a pension prior to 1974, have been increased by 22%, plus an escalation of 4½% per annum from January 1980. This is a tremendous advantage for the miner. The pneumoconiosis pensions have been increased by 10% from 1 October 1979. Lump sums have been increased. The Chamber of Mines has increased its contribution to the Pension Funds by 2%, from 7½% to 9½%. It is also true that on the general labour front, special attention is being given to health and safety. I believe that a type of explosive is now being used which increases safety with regard to poisonous gases which might be released by explosions.

Having said all these things, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that deep down, every miner is grateful for these things, but on the other hand it is also true that there are in fact problems. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that with regard to pensions, no satisfaction has yet been reached on the amount which a miner receives. I know that an investigation into a national pension scheme is in progress and I do not want to anticipate the investigation, but nevertheless—I said this last year too during the discussion of the vote—that we should consider not paying out these pensions to miners when they are transferred from one mine to another. There are specific reasons for this. However, time does not allow me to motivate this, but it is an important matter that we must look at.

With regard to post mortem certification, I can point out that with regard to the last year covered by the report, of the total number of White certifications in the first degree, 35% were post mortem. Furthermore, of the total number of White certifications in the second degree, 53,6% were post mortem, whilst with regard to tuberculosis 28,6% were post mortem. I also read the following, amongst other things, in the report which we received from the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases—

However, on the other hand this means that 75% of them do in fact show signs of it. I am aware of the fact that the Nieuwenhuizen Commission is working on this, and like the hon. member for Stilfontein, I am eagerly looking forward to the report. I hope and trust that there will also be a good recommendation in the Nieuwenhuizen Report in this regard which we can implement.

I am aware of the circumstances at the bureau when miners go there for their periodical examinations. I am aware of the fact that many of the things said by the miner, may be exaggerated—and I say this with all due respect. However, I have no doubt that this group of miners is not always treated with the necessary tact and diplomacy. Such a miner feels that he is a sick man and he wants to be examined. That is why I want to say today that these people could perhaps be treated a little more tactfully when they go there.

With a little more humanity.

Yes, with a little more humanity as the hon. member for Parys says.

It is still unclear to me personally why the tuberculosis sufferer should receive less compensation on certification than the pneumo-cosiosis sufferer does. The pneumocosiosis sufferer in the first degree can still work above ground, just like the tuberculosis sufferer after he has been cured, is able to work again. Nevertheless there is a difference in the sum that is paid out after certification for the tuberculosis sufferer and the pneumoconiosis sufferer. This remains a mystery to me.

I want to refer to another matter that is important to me. I want to say that the White miner feels threatened and ill at ease with regard to his future. This has not been grasped out of the air. The White miner knows that there are not enough White miners to keep the industry going. He accepts this. He also accepts that Black labour is absolutely essential to keep the industry going. But it is also human for these people to feel threatened by it. Their fears have been increased to a large extent because the principle of equal pay for equal work has been accepted in the latest legislation. However, this is only a partial solution. The White miner accepts the assurance of the Chamber of Mines that no worker in a particular mine will lose his job. He also accepts that the salary will not decrease if non-Whites are allowed to perform the same job. However, the White miner is concerned about what will happen if he leaves the mine and the post in question becomes vacant. The miner feels that he may possibly be threatened in those circumstances. Then he also refers at once to the Patterson plan. I know that this has nothing to do with the Government as such, but with the worker. However, there are many stories in circulation about this plan. It is said that the entire structure may possibly be graded and that this could mean that work that was previously carried out by a White man, will be graded when the post becomes vacant, so that the post can be filled artificially by a Black man in that way. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give the miner peace of mind in this respect by making a statement, possibly when he replies to this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Virginia on his speech which, to my mind, was a very good one. I trust that cognizance will be taken of the fears of the White miner which the hon. member spelt out here.

I want to refer to a very interesting debate which took place in the House on 15 June last year on the discovery of a rich coal field in the then still dependent State of Venda. The hon. member for Stilfontein welcomed this discovery on the strength of the developmental potential which it contained for this State on the eve of independence. However, the hon. member for Houghton rose to her feet and asked the hon. member for Stilfontein what his attitude would have been if rich oil deposits had been discovered near Sibasa. The hon. the Minister of Education and Training, who was still the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development at the time, reacted to the hon. member for Houghton’s question to the hon. member for Stilfontein as follows (Hansard, 15 June 1979, col. 8985)—

It is in fact true that more than one independent and dependent State has a mineral treasure which is not desired by hon. members on this side of the House, but we are very pleased that they should have them. Indeed, it is the mining of these minerals which may ultimately lead to realizing the essential economic viability of those States. There is no doubt that mining has an important role to play in the economic development of the various Black States. In fact, this was precisely what happened in the Republic itself. When the prospector, George Marrison, stumbled on a piece of gold ore on the farm Langlaagte by chance in 1886, an economic revolution was set in motion which caused this country to emerge as a financial giant. It was in effect the mining industry that put agriculture on its feet. It was also the mining industry in the Republic which gave rise to a rail network across the length and breadth of the country. It was also the mining industry which made South Africa one of the most prominent fields of investment. Therefore, I do not think anyone will object if I pay tribute on this occasion to every miner for the gigantic part which he played in building up the economy of this country.

Apart from the Republic, I think that Bophuthatswana can already be considered a State which is on the road to economic viability, thanks to the mining industry. At the moment, Bophuthatswana’s six chrome mines are producing 7% of South Africa’s total chrome production. In 1979, Bophuthatswana produced R290 million of South Africa’s total platinum production of R610 million. Bophuthatswana’s total mineral production in 1979 has reached the R350 million mark already.

If one looks at the mining activities in other Black States, the picture is just as encouraging. There are encouraging gold deposits in Gazankulu, coal deposits in Venda and anthracite deposits in Kangwane. At the moment, in eight Black States there are 59 mines in production, providing employment to 11 602 people with a total income of R15 203 906. Apart from this amount, which is earned directly in the homelands themselves, and in the nature of things contributes towards the economic development of those countries, enormous sums are earned by the 224 705 migratory labourers in South African mines, money which is ploughed back almost directly into the various countries of origin. I just want to mention one example. In 1979, workers from Lesotho alone sent R31 million home, money which they earned on mines in the Republic of South Africa.

I think the mining industry is also placing a country like Lebowa on the road to economic viability, but in addition the mining industry is also making it a State of great strategic importance for the Free World. I am referring to the importance of chrome deposits in this State. In 1978 Lebowa produced 46% of South Africa’s total chrome production, and South Africa in its turn produces 34% of the world production of chrome. In 1978-’79 the revenue from chrome production for this State was R1 315 910. Apart from this income from chrome, as I have already said, the consequential strategic value of the State should not be overlooked. Therefore, I should also like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said earlier on. A commission of inquiry, appointed by the White House, came up with certain findings. The commission says that on the long term, the USA is more vulnerable to a chrome boycott than a boycott of any other substance, including oil. Therefore, it seems to me as if even a State like Lebowa can be of greater strategic value to the USA on the long term than Nigeria is at the moment. In addition, one can simply hope that such a possibility will encourage the USA as well as other Western countries to make greater investments in these areas, which would contribute a great deal towards their economic development. The mining industry in many of these Black States is in the early stages, to be sure, but nobody can argue away the fact that the mining industry has an important role to play in the economic development of Black States. In this respect we cannot overlook the role played by the Mining Corporation since its foundation in 1969. Through the Mining Corporation, the expenditure on prospecting by the private sector in the Black States increased from just over R½ million in 1970 to over R3 million in 1977. It is my wish that the Mining Corporation will still go far with mining development in the Black States, and that mining development will speedily place these Black States on the road to economic viability.

Mr. Chairman, so many interesting topics have already been touched on this morning that one wishes one could debate this very important industry for a week rather than for a single day. Let me say immediately that I should like to join with many others in congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. I know from experience, having watched him now for some years, that he has very unusual and very rare qualities, and I know that he will also do this job very well.

I also want to refer to the annual report, which I find very interesting and very useful. I immediately want to refer to page 15, where we find statistics and some information regarding labour. I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Virginia that it depends enormously on how we are going to deal with our total labour force whether we are going to get the maximum advantages of the incredible riches we have in South Africa. We notice a colossal number of people are involved in the mining industry, no fewer than 719 444, and a breakdown of this number tells its own story. Of the total labour force, a mere 78 061 are White, almost 14 000 are Coloured and fewer than 1 000 are Asian, while 626 487 are Black. The moment one looks at that, one realizes that we have enormous potential and possibilities, and possibly also problems. The hon. member for Virginia referred to some problem areas, but I am not going to touch on any of them at the moment. I shall, however, come back to his very real question concerning the insecurity felt by many Whites who are working in the industry and his reference to the Patterson plan in particular. What I find quite fascinating in the report, is that we are told that 59,26% of the total labour force are recruited in the Republic. That is, of course, a very much larger proportion than in the past. But then I find that the Republic, interestingly enough perhaps from a political point of view, is defined so as to include South West Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana and all the other Black States. I am not quite sure why this was necessary, but it was very interesting to note. This immediately means that one brings down one’s percentage very considerably, which again leads to other kinds of problems. Another very interesting comment is made on page 15 regarding the Government’s miners’ training college, which remains the main source of supply of qualified White miners for the gold-mining industry. The report reflects a fall-off of applications. This raises the whole interesting point as to where this particular industry is moving in terms of labour. If we have a fall-off in applications, it obviously means that there is a hesitation in the minds of many White people whether or not they have any real future in the mining industry.

I think the Chamber of Mines and a number of the individual companies have rightly stressed that there will not be reverse discrimination in the mining industry. I believe this is a word which must go out from this House as well, because if we are going to have that development I foresee very real problems. Having said that, I want to state immediately that I take issue with the hon. member for Stilfontein, who says that the blasting certificate should remain the prerogative of the White mineworker. The hon. member will know from his own experience in the mining industry that without a blasting certificate there is no way a worker can go beyond a certain stage on the skilled ladder in the mining industry. It is an absolute block unless one has that blasting certificate. If we look at the Mines and Works Act, I think that will also demonstrate what I am saying.

As a benefit for the mining industry as a whole, and also bearing in mind the vast percentage of workers in that industry who just happen to be Black, the Mines and Works Act should be reviewed and amended as soon as possible. It should be done in such a way that it will enable all workers to produce effectively and productively for the benefit of the mining industry and for South Africa as a whole. On the one hand we must make it absolutely clear that by extending the training for all workers it should in no way be seen as a threat to the White workers who are already in the industry. This would be blatantly unjust. I believe that is not the intention. Those people who are stirring this up, particularly the White Mineworkers’ Union, that constantly refers to this possibility, should be told loudly and clearly that the mining industry is not going to discriminate against those workers who are already involved in that industry.

The Patterson Plan does create problems. I can see that immediately. It is something with which I have been working very closely in the past, and I do think there is a way around it. Because we have had a very small repository of highly skilled people in the mining industry—and this was, for various reasons, confined to the White group—we have had an inflated wage rate paid to a number of jobs. There can be no doubt about it because it is the scarcity of skill that immediately gives it the inflated rate in the market. That is the case everywhere; let alone in the mining industry. If one takes the Patterson Plan and one does a job evaluation of a particular job, I can think of only one way in which one can get away from the suspicion amongst the White mineworkers. That is by suggesting that the evaluation itself, as contained in the Patterson Plan, is followed not only by the employer but by the employee as well. In other words, they must both look at the value of the job. They both have to do the measurement so that they can reach a situation in which they can agree that a particular job is worth so many points, and that it is therefore worth so much in cash. Otherwise one is going to have a real problem, because if we are going to get productivity in the mining industry we simply cannot continue to pay inflated wage rates for particular jobs. That cannot be done. It is against our own interests. There is, however, also a human problem here, and I am suggesting that one of the ways in which one can do this—perhaps the only way—is by making absolutely sure that not merely the employer of an individual mine and his personnel department, but the mine-workers themselves, become involved in doing the evaluation.

I should like to refer to only one other thing. Time is so limited. I want to refer to the high accident rate in industry as a whole, and in mining in particular. According to the National Occupational Safety Association and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, someone dies in a South African factory or mine every 3½ hours. We are also told that every hour of every day 40 people are injured, and of these about four are permanently disabled. The mining industry accounts for a large percentage of industrial deaths and industrial injuries. According to the report, the death rate has shown a yearly deterioration since 1973. In 1979, 832 were killed and 22 997 were injured in accidents. This devastating figure is compounded by the fact that although Black mineworkers do get paid out in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, White mineworkers enjoy an insurance life cover of R10 000 at the moment, towards which they pay about R4,80 per month while their employers contribute a similar amount. However, it is always more Blacks than Whites who are killed in these accidents, simply because of the fact that there are more Black workers. I do not believe that they are getting a fair deal. In view of the fact that they are contract workers, come from farms and have families that are very often extremely poor and very often large, unfortunately, I think the same sort of life cover that is given to a White mineworker, should be extended to a Black mineworker as well against the background of this unfortunate occupational hazard in the mining industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have much fault to find with the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, except in respect of one matter which I wish to rectify at once. I do not believe that in this quiet, tranquil atmosphere of a Friday morning we should drag politics into the discussion of this important Vote. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that the NP has been governing South Africa for many years now. There are many hon. members on this side of the House who know our mineworker friends in South Africa. I do not want to blame the hon. member for Pinelands for advocating that we should deprive White mineworkers of their blasting certificates, for I do not believe there are many mineworkers in Pinelands, which he represents. I want to give the unequivocal assurance that as long as the NP governs South Africa, our White mineworkers in South Africa can be assured of the fact that their blasting certificates are safe in their hands.

However, I really want to discuss a matter which I believe is of cardinal importance to our mineworkers. Fourteen years ago I stood up here and made a speech about a matter to which I am going to refer again on this occasion. The hon. member for Stilfontein, who sat with me at that time, and other junior hon. members who came after me, have also discussed this.

The late “Oom” Daan Ellis, the Chief Secretary of the Trade Union, said on that occasion that the difficulty he had with every Minister of Mines was that before a Minister of Mines could even spell or pronounce the word “pneumoconiosis”, another Minister of Mines had already taken over the portfolio.

It is true that over the years, during the years that I have been here as well, there have been many Ministers of Mines. One has just won him over to the cause which is of the utmost value to us and our mineworkers when there is yet another Minister of Mines. Consequently I hope and trust that that dynamic young man will be the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs for many years.

I want to discuss the necessity that we in South Africa find a system in terms of which a gratuity or lump sum can be paid out to the mineworker, irrespective of whether he has contracted a disease or not, after he has rendered a certain number of years of good service to South Africa. The hon. the Minister will now tell me at once that the Nieuwenhuyzen Commission has been appointed, a commission for which we are particularly grateful and which consists of experts appointed by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor to examine this matter, among other things. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the mineworkers in South Africa are looking forward to this commission’s findings with great interest. I am sorry that the commission’s report cannot be tabled during the present session of this Parliament, but I am told that this is to be done within the foreseeable future.

A grave responsibility rests on the hon. the Minister as well as on us in this House. If the commission, is not in favour of the idea in respect of this extremely important matter, the gratuity for mineworkers, which is being expressed by every hon. member on this side of the House who is a member of the study group on mining, then I want to state that the NP Government in South Africa has never been governed by commissions. We appoint commissions to advise the Government, it is true, but since this is a serious matter, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister today to assist us in realizing this great expectation among the mineworkers in South Africa, and to try to cut the Gordian knot.

Furthermore I want to say that Mr. Arrie Paulus, the chief secretary of the Trade Union, is a member of that commission and I also want to say today with due responsibility that I believe that Mr. Paulus is a responsible person. I also want to believe that he knows the needs of his people. I look forward with great confidence and anticipation to being able to read what his standpoint is going to be on this extremely important matter, that of gratuities.

I do not know whether hon. members opposite testified before the commission. If they did not do so, it is a great pity. I believe that they would also be able to make a contribution there since this is an important matter to our mineworkers. We on this side of the House did do so and I think that every one of the other members who were there acquitted themselves particularly well.

I want to say—I think one of the other hon. members referred to this—that the mineworkers do not have a great deal of confidence in the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases, and this, too, I say with great responsibility. The hon. the Minister of Health is present at the moment and he will be in charge of this in the years which lie ahead. In the first place, there is a lack of confidence due to the fact that the people who go to the Bureau to be certified are ill mineworkers. I want to say in this House today that it should be seen to that those people should receive good and proper treatment when paying a visit to that Bureau, not that I want to imply for one moment that this is not happening from day to day, because the fact of the matter is that if one contacts the Bureau and arranges with the people there for some of one’s voters to attend the Bureau, they receive VIP treatment. The immorality in respect of the whole system lies in the fact that this is the first legislation that exists—and the hon. the Minister of Health can listen to this—and gives rise to the fact that if a person goes for an examination and is found not to be ill after examination, he is angry. In my opinion this is the immorality which is part and parcel of the whole system; i.e. the mineworker is sent to the bureau and he would like to be certified, since there is no other compensation—as I call it—in respect of gratuity. He approaches the Bureau, is found to be healthy, and then he is unhappy because he would have liked to be certified in order to be able to obtain additional compensation.

I want to declare again today that the mineworker in general—and I have been representing the mineworkers in my constituency for 26 years, which is a long time, and I know the people—is not happy with the Medical Bureau. They are not happy with the whole system, because they feel that the vast majority of people certified— and all of us know this—are in fact certified post mortem. I could list a series of statistics to emphasize that fact. That is why, without going into this whole matter in too great depth, I am making a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to help us, in Heaven’s name, to cut this Gordian knot.

I have a letter, one of the many we receive from our mineworkers, addressed to the hon. the Minister. It is now in my hands. It is certainly not a secret document. It is a responsible letter. I want to quote one or two paragraphs to clarify the whole situation I am now dealing with. He writes—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to speak after the hon. member for Welkom. In the first place I want to congratulate him on his exceptional contribution. In the second place, like the rest of the House I am very pleased that he is with us again. [Interjections.] It seems to me that his recent illness was really only school illness, for he looks very healthy. We are very pleased that he is in his bench and that he has been able to participate in this debate.

The success story of the local mineral industry has been written over many years by the hands of people who have had to perform their task deep in the earth’s crust under difficult and, at times, very dangerous circumstances. The story has also been written by others who, by means of their expertise, have made it possible for the worker to penetrate the earth’s crust. We have great respect and appreciation for these people. Fortunately, the story is not one which has come to an end; it continues to be written, because it is possible for business concerns to operate in a milieu of orderly government which ensures peace and stability.

Let us note a few statistics that are anything but boring. In 1979, approximately 900 mines were operated in this country. 800 000 people were employed by those mines, and R2 440 million was paid to them in salaries. For the purposes of my argument I just want to point out that in the immediate vicinity of Rustenburg, 3 800 Whites and 60 000 Blacks are employed in the mining industry. The decision to export coal on a large scale has created employment opportunities for 70 000 people. We might also note that 50 mineral commodities were sold for R9 768 million last year. Incidentally, this is 42% higher than the previous year. The projection for gold sales alone is that R25 500 million will be earned in 1985.

When we examine these figures, they only re-emphasize the importance of the mineral industry in our national economy. Hon. members, amongst others the hon. member for Randfontein, spelled this out masterfully and pointed out to us that since the end of the previous century this country of ours, has been revolutionized in the economic sphere owing to the mining industry and its activities. It was the mining industry which changed South Africa into an investment paradise. It is also the mining industry which is responsible for enormous amounts of money deposited in the State coffers in the form of taxes. This ultimately means only one thing and that is that it can give rise to economic stability and this economic stability cannot be underestimated. Bearing all this in mind, we must take into account afresh that it is human hands that bring these treasures to the surface. It is the people’s expertise that enables them to do so. We in this country have the resources and the manpower.

Besides the work which the mineworker and also, in a sense the mining houses have to do, there is also another very important task for those workers. I want to point out to hon. members that in the area that I represent, the national borders between the Republic of Bophutatswana and the Republic of South Africa runs through a mineral-rich basin where atmospheric catastrophies left a sediment of unparalleled mineral riches millions of years ago. I want to use this very area as an example to indicate that it is the extremely important task of the mineworker, everyone who works with him, and his employers, to provide the Black man with skills, to enable him to exploit the riches in his own country which are his due.

Surely, there on the threshold of our country, we cannot deprive the Black citizens of a developing, independent State of our guiding hand and our ability to instruct. We cannot deny them the desire and the right to grow in the economic field as well and to develop in an orderly way to full maturity as a sovereign, independent State in Southern Africa. Surely this is in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa, and we are not discussing this simply because it is in Bophuthatswana’s interests. We must promote the idea that the mineral industry can mean just as much to countries such as Bophuthatswana, as it means to our country and its people. But what is more, if this were to happen, it would be the central pivot around which everything revolved. We on this side of the House desire the pattern and the policy of development along individual lines will take shape in the full sense of the word. This will happen specifically because “development” in the sense of development along individual lines is being emphasized. The policy of development along individual lines and friendly neighbourliness is dead if development does not remain a vital component of it. The geopolitical components in the Republic of South Africa and of the mineral-rich independent States entail great and new responsibilities. The world must always be able to depend on our reliability as a supplier of the necessary minerals. Furthermore it will also give final shape to the idea of a constellation of States in Southern Africa which will breathe the spirit of interdependence with the one purpose in mind of keeping communism out of this part of the world. Bearing all this in mind we can tell the mineworker today without hesitation that his share in the progress and his indispensability in the future development will never be underestimated. We also want to say that no nation can survive or develop if there is no peace, and that includes labour peace. That is why I ask the mineworkers, for our sake, for the sake of this country of ours and for the sake of the whole Western World, to reject the Arrie Pauluses totally and to help in building a dispensation in this country in which peace, development and faith will be the only armour against poverty, unrest, deterioration and chaos. The finest of all promises and the most promising of all projections will disappear like mist before the sun if there is no political stability here. Everyone who wants to work in this country will be afforded the opportunity to work, but everyone will also have to work hard. We are now engaged in a mineral debate, and I want to say that if we do these things in this way the dawn will bring us wealth and the silver lining around the stormcloud will have far greater meaning for us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rustenberg on his brilliant speech. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking him most sincerely for the friendly words he addressed to me. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman—if you shout “order”, I shall hear it—that as far as my heart is concerned, it is still beating National.

Before I was interrupted, I was saying that those of us who represent mine-workers’ constituencies, receive letters from our voters from time to time. I have before me a letter which I received from a mineworker and, because I have a little more time now, I should like to quote from it at length, since I see in it the problems the mineworkers in South Africa have to deal with. I have already said that this is not a contentious letter. It is a very fine letter, a letter attests to a very praiseworthy attitude. I quote—

I am very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is present in this House—

Then he uses the words “nie eens krummels nie”. Let me continue—

To link up with what our good mining friend has said here, I want to say that surely it is a fact that the favourable budget which was introduced in March is ascribable to the factual situation, viz. that we are in South Africa today in a favourable position in respect of our high gold price. It is also a fact that that gold is extracted from the earth under difficult circumstances by our mine-workers, White as well as non-White. The time has arrived in South Africa—and I say this with great responsibility—for us to avoid the idea that the mine worker is simply that component in South Africa that extracts the gold, and that once it has been extracted, his interests are not looked after. The NP has governed South Africa for 32 years now, and the mineworkers of South Africa know that the Government can be entrusted with their fate. But I believe that the time has arrived for us, as far as our mineworkers in South Africa are concerned, to refrain from simply paying lip-service. It is time for us to give South Africa’s mineworkers something tangible as well.

Since concern is expressed in the extract I quoted, since this spokesman pleads with the Minister to try to help with tears in his eyes, as he puts it, I, too, want to make an urgent request to the hon. the Minister please to make an effort, when the Nieuwenhuyzen report appears, to help ensure that they are paid a gratuity.

Finally, I want to express my fullest confidence in this young hon. Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I know that he has the interests of the South African mine-workers at heart. I want to put it to him today that we are looking forward to the Nieuwenhuyzen Commission report with great anticipation. As I have already said, with justification, the people serving on that Commission are knowledgeable people. But I have the greatest confidence that if recommendations for a gratuity are not contained in the report—a gratuity to mineworkers who have rendered good service to the economy of South Africa for many years— the hon. the Minister will also contribute his share towards rectifying that aspect for our White mineworkers in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it was with a great deal of interest that we listened to the speech by the hon. member for Welkom. We commend him for his analogy and for saying that it is more than lip service that needs to be given to the needs of the mineworkers.

Allow me to say right at the outset that I do not represent a constituency that comes within 100 miles of a mine. Nevertheless, I should like to make one point. That is that some of the people who have spent their lives working in mines retire to constituencies such as mine. The hon. member for Welkom has read from one letter. I have many files of letters that I have received from retired mineworkers, who, because they have been retired for health reasons, now find that they are experiencing difficulties, great difficulties, in making ends meet.

In the mining debate last year I raised the question of the very high number of deaths on mines. I should like to state how pleased I am to notice that in the debate today more hon. members are raising the question of health conditions in mines and are pleading for action to be taken to reduce the death rate and the injury rate in the mines. I believe that this is really a matter to which we as legislators should be giving our attention. I find this very welcome indeed.

I should like to refer briefly to page 20 of the report, where reference is made to the deteriorating situation regarding the dust levels in coal mines. I see that attention is being given to this matter. I want to submit that there are two main factors which give rise to the diseases for which miners are retired on pension or removed from underground working areas. One of those, obviously, is dust. The graph given in the report relating to the dust particles findings over the years in the mines, shows a welcome downward trend. In other words, the dust levels are falling. This is indeed encouraging. That is the overall situation.

There is another important aspect that needs attention. That is the question of noxious fumes in mines. Of course, I refer here to the question of the noxious fumes that are released by the explosives that are widely used. We know that the most noxious of these fumes are probably the nitrogen dioxide fumes, as well as nitrogen tetroxide fumes. We know that the traditional explosives used in mines produce, depending on the conditions in which they are used, various parts per million of these noxious fumes. It is interesting, if one has access to some of the work that has been done in America, and which is also beginning to be done here, to note that there are newer explosives, for example, the water gel explosives, which, according to the available literature, show very clearly that they are responsible for lower levels of such toxic fumes. I believe it is incumbent upon us in this House to be aware of modern developments, particularly where they affect the health of so many people who are engaged in underground mining conditions, conditions which are dangerous at the best of times.

So if there is anything that can be done to highlight new developments, whether it be in regard to explosives or mining techniques, not only from the point of view of saving lives, but also from the point of view of seeing to it that the lives of miners after retirement are as comfortable as possible, and also ensuring that they suffer as little damage to their lungs as possible, I believe that we should raise these issues in this place and that they should occupy a great deal of the debating time when we discuss the Vote of the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. There is an aspect I should now like to put to him. From the information I have managed to glean, the water-gel explosives look very promising, and it looks as if a move should be made to test these on a wider scale than at present. I am aware of the report of the Fuel Research Institute, a report which refers briefly to this new technology and to testing. I know that does not specifically fall under this hon. Minister, but I refer him to that report because this is an issue to which I think he will have to give attention. I should like him perhaps to consider, from the Government point of view, a request to the S.A. Bureau of Standards to categorize the explosives that are available, with a view to giving an indication of the hazard levels of those explosives. Obviously those hazard levels will relate, in many ways, to the noxious fumes liberated by those explosives in the work place, in this case in the mines themselves. In this way an independent body would be able to comment on the relative hazards of the explosives that are available, and those people who are responsible for deciding which explosives are to be used would then have independent evidence and independent information on which to base their choice of the explosives to be used. I understand that the water-gel explosives also have an advantage in the sense that their shelf-life is very much longer than that of the nitroglycerine explosives currently in use. If this is the case, the benefits go even beyond the health aspects to which I have referred, also relating to the safety aspect of explosives which the hon. member for Stilfontein referred to. He quoted the number of deaths resulting from accidents involving explosives. Obviously a product that has a longer shelf-life, to my way of thinking, offers benefits in the sense that there is an increased safety factor. If this is the case, there could be many good reasons why it would be important for us to have a closer look at these water-gel explosives to see whether they do not, in fact, offer many benefits as far as the overall health of miners in South Africa is concerned. I should like to leave the matter at that. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could comment on what I have said and indicate what his feelings are. I feel that this is an urgent matter, however, because the number of deaths referred to in the report is a high number, even allowing for the fact that mining is a hazardous occupation. The number of deaths is too high, and anything that can be done to reduce the number of deaths per 1 000 miners we should, I believe, be giving priority attention to.

I should now like to raise an issue I dealt with last year in the mining debate. I should like to raise it again because we have a new Minister whom we have already welcomed in his new position. I am referring to the question of pneumoconiosis sufferers. I know that they received a 10%-increase last October, but last year South Africa suffered from inflation to the extent of just under 14%. In any event, that 10%-increase was really only of benefit to that group of pensioners in the last three months of the year. There is a suggestion I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. In the present-day economic conditions in the world we live in, I believe it is necessary for us to look at the levels of payment to these pneumoconiosis pensioners every year, because it is very difficult for them to make ends meet. We in this House have heard quoted examples of the personal experiences of some of these people.

There is another point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. In accordance with the damage to the lungs of these pensioners, they are graded into three different categories. There is the 20% to 50% impairment category, the 50% to 75% category and then those with an impairment exceeding 75%. Their recompense is based on the medical findings relating to those three categories. I wonder whether the time has not come to upgrade the basic benefits payable in respect of those three categories, in other words, to make the benefits payable to the middle category equal to those for the top category—that is for those that are the most severely impaired—and to upgrade the other categories in proportion, because nobody needs highlight the contribution that these people have made towards the development of South Africa and towards the amount of money which we are currently earning world-wide in terms of our exports of minerals. I think that we should look very hard at the way in which we are compensating them for the known risks that they took in the years they spent on the mines to build South Africa into the situation in which it is today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea discussed aspects of work in the mines relating to health, and I think that for a change not one of us disagrees with him.

The hon. member for Durban North also commented here on the export of coal, and made an appeal in respect of the question of the processing of our coal, and we agree with him in this regard as well. However, I think there is one point which the hon. member did not raise and which is quite often omitted, viz. that so far this Government has followed the most far-sighted energy policy in the world. Even when one could still buy crude oil for next to nothing at every street corner, this Government made a start with an expensive process of processing oil from coal. I believe that that aspect of the Government’s policy is emphasized too seldom and receives too little recognition.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two matters. It is quite correct that the small entrepreneur forms a very important pillar of South Africa’s economy. When the small entrepreneur is referred to, it is usually the small factory and the small business concern which chiefly comes to mind. What is not always realized is that the important mining industry is to a very large extent supported by the small mining entrepreneur. A survey shows that out of a total of 900 working mines, 33 mines have a turnover of between R2 million and R3 million per annum. 82 of those mines have a turnover of between R1 million and R2 million per annum, and no fewer than 623 of those 900 mines have a turnover of less than R1 million per annum. This means that 82% of the working mines in our country may be defined as so-called small mines. The chances for expansion of this small-scale mining industry are excellent, in the sphere of pegmatite minerals in particular which are still virtually undeveloped in the North Western Cape.

The exploitation of the scarce elements in those minerals, called the “high technology minerals”, are essential for the sophisticated electronics industry and there is a tremendous demand for them. Their exploitation is most appropriately carried out by the small enterpreneur, because in the nature of the matter they are exploited on a small scale. The situation is that geographically, the small mines occur principally in the remote areas of the Northern Cape, the Northern Transvaal, Northern Natal and Namaqualand. These are all areas which have comparatively poor infrastructures, and that is why water, energy and transport in particular are expensive in some parts and constitute important bottlenecks in this industry. Quite apart from the production of raw materials and the earning of foreign exchange, the small-scale mining industry makes two very important contributions to the South African economy. In the first instance, because that industry is less rich in capital, it is not in a position to mechanize on a large scale. Consequently the industry is very labour intensive and as such it is an important source for the provision of employment. In the second instance, because it is so widely distributed in the remote areas to which I referred, it complies naturally with the principle contained in our policy of decentralization but is nevertheless not entitled to any decentralization benefits.

I now ask that the small-scale mining industry be identified just like other small entrepreneurs, that the bottlenecks in this industry be examined in depth and that decentralization benefits be granted to these people in some adjusted way so that they can meet their high transportation costs in particular.

A second matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister concerns the first matter to which I referred, for it is specifically the small entrepreneur who has placed the industry which I now want to discuss, viz. the reclamation of diamonds from the sea on the west coast of Namaqualand, on an economic basis. There is great interest—as we heard on the radio this very morning—in these concession areas. As far as the granting of concessions is concerned, there are two requests I should like to make. In the first instance I want to ask that adequate land be kept in reserve in order to extend the life of the State diggings at Alexander Bay on a sound basis. By saying that I do not imply that I give priority to State undertakings above private enterprise. The contrary is true.

But there are factors which are more important than even private enterprise. One such factor is stability, for it is only in an atmosphere of stability that private enterprise can flourish. Alexander Bay, on the border between South West Africa and the Republic, is our furthest outpost along the west coast, and with its 495 Whites, 342 Coloureds and 914 Blacks its importance as a stabilizing factor in an extremely sparsely populated area cannot be over-emphasized. The fact that it is specifically the State that has a financial interest in it, heightens the confidence of the people there and consequently makes a greater contribution to the stability of the area.

Finally, in connection with the granting of concessions, I cannot but emphasize the interests of the adjacent Namaqualand. We who live there and love the area want to live nowhere else, but we do not only want to be known as a community which is afflicted by droughts. When speaking of the interests of the people of Namaqualand I refer implicitly to the Whites, but to the Coloureds as well. In this regard I want to advocate that if applications are received which compete with other applications on merit and in which the inhabitants of Namaqualand can be involved, their interests should be taken into account, and since I cannot ask for their application to be given preferential treatment above other applications, I ask that the people of Namaqualand and their interests should not lightly be overlooked in considering the applications.

Mr. Chairman, we are living in a time in which South Africa could not afford enough recognition to the part played by minerals in making South Africa a prosperous and secure country. I am convinced that our minerals could become the greatest single factor in our struggle for survival, for the key to a powerful South African economy lies in our soil.

Because the mineral industry is of essential strategic importance, this entails exceptional responsibilities for all of us who are involved in this matter, i.e. the Government and the employers’ and employees’ organizations. Any person or body that does not take into account this strategic importance of the mineral industry will certainly be branded as irresponsible.

I want to focus on a few aspects affecting the mine-workers as such. I want to refer specifically to the Medical Bureau and I want to express my appreciation for the part the mineworkers have played in establishing and stabilizing the mining industry in South Africa. The achievements of the 77 300 White mineworkers in the production process cannot be underestimated.

Mr. Chairman, at times the achievements of the mineworker in the production process involve a serious deterioration in health. Discussions with experts in the certifying and reviewing bodies, as well as with members of the management of the relevant trade unions, and in sympathy with mineworkers, led to but a few conclusions. There are, firstly, a few credit points I should like to bring to the attention of the Committee, but in the second place I also want to say that I have sympathy for some of the frustrations and disappointments of the mineworker.

On the credit side, the mineworker can most definitely regard himself as fortunate that there is such a large group of medical scientists on the certifying bodies who are available on an ongoing basis and have been brought together to be of service to them at no great cost. It is important to emphasize once again that these are private doctors and that only one doctor from the Bureau serves on such a committee. Even the Mineworkers Union is in a position to nominate a doctor to serve on such a committee.

A comparative study casts a favourable light on the standards and practices applied in South Africa. The Medical Bureau’s annual report for the year 1971-’72 indicates that in that particular year 1 528 pneumoconiosis sufferers were certified. These cases were analysed and similarities were sought with equivalent standards and practices in three other countries. Where there was doubt, the other countries involved were given the benefit of the doubt. It then came to light that in New South Wales a mere 39% of these 1 528 pneumoconiosis sufferers would have received compensation. In England 30% and in the United States 36% would have been compensated.

Let me make just one remark about the frustrations and disappointments of the mineworker. Some mineworkers take it, wrongly, that their widows will receive post mortem compensation from the Bureau, then neglect to take out life insurance policies. The hardship which results from this can be imagined. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to apply to the Medical Bureau, too, the two sound principles which he has already implemented both implicitly and explicitly. The hon. the Minister’s standpoint is, firstly, that there should be no unnecessary interference in the process of negotiating between the employers’ and employees’ organizations—this is correct— and also that we should try not to involve politics within the cadre. I believe that a round table discussion could play an important part in apolitizing matters with the Medical Bureau as an example—and in this way, achieving consensus in respect of matters which are related to the welfare of the mineworker. In that way we shall also be able to attempt to enlist the support of the Mineworkers Union in promoting the positive aspects surrounding the Medical Bureau and other matters. It is very clear that a message or report such as this carries particular weight when conveyed through the channels of the relevant organized employees’ associations. If we can promote the positive and non-political aspects in this way, once agreement has been reached on them, I believe that we may expect exceptional success in this sphere.

Mr. Chairman, I was unable this morning to complete the remarks I wanted to make about the mining aspect of this portfolio. I would like to touch briefly on one important matter, viz. the accident rate on the mines. But before I come to that I want to refer very briefly to a point made by the hon. member for Welkom. He suggested that the hon. member for Pinelands was asking that privileges be taken away from White mineworkers. This obviously was not the intention of the hon. member for Pinelands. What we are saying is that in an expanding and increasingly effective industry like the gold, coal or other mining industries, if certain rights or privileges are enjoyed by a few and other people in this expanding industry are also given an opportunity to qualify for more skilled or responsible work, this does not take anything away from the original holder of those rights and privileges.

That is the point.

It is essential to enable other people to share more fully in responsibilities and opportunities which occur in an expanding industry like our mining industry in South Africa.

It is going to happen too.

I come now to the question of the accident rate, to the application of the international safety rating system, which is referred to in the report by the Government Mining Engineer, and to the application of the principles of loss control. This is a new approach to an old problem. On the face of it, the first indications are that it is paying off. The results on the gold-mines certainly look promising, where, in the year 1979, there was a considerable reduction in the death rate. It has always been a matter of great concern in our gold-mining industry that the death rate is so high. It is obviously a dangerous profession. One cannot throw stones at the mining industry, at the Chamber of Mines, which gives a great deal of anxious attention to the problem of the death and injury rate on the mines. However, we cannot just be prosperous and turn our eyes away from what is quite clearly a tragic situation. We are therefore hopeful that the improvement in the case of the gold-mines, which has not yet appeared so clearly in the coalmines, will also be achieved by the latter industry. I referred earlier to improvements in the coal-mining industry, the emergence of a more efficient, effective, prosperous and happy industry, in consequence of certain changes, including the export of limited quantities of coal which has resulted in higher prices and greater profits without the local cost of coal being increased unduly. This has had an important effect on the coal industry. It has been a kind of blood transfusion. One sees in the report of the Government Mining Engineer, where he refers e.g. to poisonous gases and the circulation of air, that coal mines are becoming more modern, efficient and able to pay for the kind of modern techniques and developments which are going to make coal-mining a better and more effective mining industry in South Africa. These are very positive benefits which cannot be ignored.

There is another point I wish to mention. There are still many old coal-mines which suffer from all the signs of the impoverished days of the coal-mining industry. At Witbank, there are coal fires underground, which cause a great deal of concern to the people in the area. There is a danger of roads collapsing; vehicles have fallen into these burning pits. This situation is being treated, as far as one is aware, by putting warning notices around these areas. These areas are a great hazard. Although it is a relic of past neglect and poor mining practices in the past, it is something we must move away from and control where it still occurs.

I move now to the question of energy and refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister on 7 February 1980. As hon. members will remember, it dealt with the use of alcohol and other fuels produced from indigenous raw materials for the purpose of augmenting and replacing petroleum fuel in internal combustion engines. Although the document—certainly in its English version— appears to be rather obscure and hard to understand—this might be a fault in the translation—it certainly repays careful study, because I think here we have an important step forward in our whole approach to the energy spectrum. We are, of course, aware of the advantages of the enormous coal reserves that we have and the advantages of improving our coal-mining sector with a view to producing not only solid fuels for the generation of electricity and manufacture of steel and so on, but also to produce liquid fuels for our transport requirements. The latter has led in the first instance to the expansion of the Sasol operation, which I think is one where the economics are basically known and proven, where a marginally competitive situation can be made to operate and which enjoys the growing confidence of the country. I think the amount of money which is invested by the public in general is an indication of the great expectations we in South Africa have of the Sasol development.

There are other possibilities. One knows from other countries for example that it is expected through proper development of solar energy possibilities something like 10%, even rising to 15%, of the total energy requirements of a modern industrial country can be supplied by the proper development of solar energy. If the storage of electricity could be improved further, that is to say with the use of better batteries and other means, it could also mean that the use of solar energy could be further extended, because everybody knows that the sun only shines in daytime.

I think the other element that is well worth developing, and this paper of the hon. the Minister makes mention of it, is the development of alcohol fuels, which is thought to be able to add as much as a potential 10% to 15% to the energy situation. If these additions can be made, and they are important because percentages like 10 or 15 are very large and important percentages in the energy spectrum, we will take giant steps forward further towards solving the whole problem of poverty of energy in the particular case of a country like South Africa, which has no direct access to oil or petroleum supplies and which has to pay very high prices to get them. I think that the policy directions indicated in this paper are very important ones. It has been suggested that one could go even further and use one’s coal reserves to produce more liquid fuels, to beneficiate the coal so to speak, for export in a better form. I think on the figures so far as I am aware of it, maybe the hon. the Minister has got better figures, this does not yet look like an economic proposition at all. I think that one would have to export to countries which do have direct access to Opec sources and which probably pay less for their petroleum and to refine it than it would cost us to produce liquid fuels from coal and to export that liquid fuel to other countries.

Then there are also the by-products.

Yes, but they also get the by-products from petroleum. It is certainly an attractive idea, but to the best of my knowledge of the economics it does not look like a practical proposition at the present time. However, we look forward to hearing the hon. the Minister’s view on this particular subject.

In the little time still at my disposal, I want to refer briefly to the question of fuel supplies for the nuclear power reactor in South Africa. I believe that we are now within about two years of the reactor going critical and beginning to generate electricity. It is not yet clear to the friends of nuclear power, and even more troublesome to those who are not friends of nuclear power in South Africa, that the fuel cycle, which is the critical part of the whole operation, does not yet appear to have been settled, clarified or firmed up to the necessary extent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say there is nothing about which I have to differ from the hon. member for Constantia. In fact, I want to agree with him that the way in which the public are investing in the Sasol projects is an indication of their expectations with regard to that undertaking. I think—and in this respect I want to agree with the hon. member for Namaqualand—that it is a feather in the cap of the NP Government that it planned and developed a Sasol over the years. In a period when oil could be purchased very cheaply and in days of abundance and prosperity, the Government laid in stocks to make provision for the future. I want to thank the hon. member for perceiving that.

I want to turn to a different field for a while. The other day I read the Hansard of 2 September 1924. In col. 1207 the former MP for Bechuanaland, the late Mr. Raubenheimer, advocated that the catching of locusts should be subsidized. He said, inter alia—

In the Afrikaans version it is spelt “Koeroeman”—

He went on to say—

He also said—

Furthermore he said—

He is referring to bales of dried locusts. Unfortunately Mr. Raubenheimer did not indicate what the foreign exchange earnings were of this export product of the Northern Cape. What we do know is that when the swarm of locusts moved across this part of the country, nothing remained for the people living there.

Today I want to present a picture of the same region about which Mr. Raubenheimer made his appeal in 1924. I do so with great pride. It is the part of South Africa which may rightly be called the mineral treasure chest of South Africa. The mineral sales from this region amounted to R48 million in 1960 and R363 million in 1976, and at present they amount to R750 million. The increase in total mineral sales over the past three years has been 106,6%. The total mineral sales in 1960 amounted to R48 million. The total tax paid by the mining industry in this region during the past financial year, was R55 million. The value of minerals exported this year, amounts to R590 million.

Where are the locusts now?

We exported them in former times.

Now they eat Progs.

Yes, now they eat Progs. The figures I have quoted paint a picture of prosperity, progress and development. We have here a growing and developing rural area with the potential to help support South Africa’s growing population.

I want to quote from a report of BERBD which instituted an investigation into this region—

I want to emphasize “verwerkte minerale”—

This is a fine and encouraging projection which BERBD has made for us in respect of this region. But we are concerned that a locust policy will be adopted in this region, that this region will be stripped of its riches and that they will be sent elsewhere in South Africa and in the world to be processed to bring about development and progress there. What I want to say is that this region should not be seen as a mineral milch-cow. It must not only be the harvest land, or even be seen as a front region for resources. An effort must be made to beneficiate and process some of its minerals locally. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that all the expertise in South Africa should be mobilized to persuade foreign companies that purchase our minerals to invest in South Africa, and rather to beneficiate and process the minerals in South Africa, but preferably at the point of development. South Africa, and in particular the region where the minerals are exploited, must derive the greatest benefit from the product which is produced.

With this picture as a background, I want to pay tribute today to the mining companies that are unlocking this mineral treasure chest in the Northern Cape. These companies have brought life, development and prosperity to this area. Infrastructures have improved vastly. Almost all towns in the Northern Cape are linked by tar roads today, as well-planned Escom power network provides necessary energy for this area, and excellent radio and television reception and training and working facilities have been created. The apprenticeship school where approximately 500 young men are at present being trained as artisans in the mining industry, attests to this. Large scale employment opportunities have also been created in the mining industry for the Tswanas of our adjacent neighbouring country. A dynamic Iscor organization has linked this region by means of the Sishen-Saldanha line to the outside world to which minerals can be exported, something which earns a great deal of money for South Africa. The mining industry has brought life to existing towns and their people are playing a very important role in the community life of the towns in the Northern Cape. Fine new towns have, of course, developed in this region as well. I want to mention the example of Kathu. I think the Economic Affairs group paid a visit there recently. This is a beautiful town which has come into being there in the camelthorn jungle. A thousand houses were built within three years and the apprenticeship school, to which I have just referred, was established there, and young men are being trained there as artisans in the mining industry. A rule was made there that not one of the fine camel-thorn trees, which are indicated on a map, may be destroyed, and if they are, the person who does so will be fined.

The very best sporting facilities were created for both the Whites and the Black people working in the mining industry. We find that many of the Black people who have already made their names on the sports fields of South Africa received their training in the mines of the Northern Cape. I need only mention the name of Mathews Batswadi, who was born at Mothibi Town at Kuruman. At Ammosal, where he worked, they taught him to jog these long distances, and he has developed into one of the very finest long distance athletes we have in South Africa today. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member for Mooirivier is kicking up such a racket, I just want to say that the Ammosal Rugby Club, which is exclusively a mining club at Beeshoek near Postmasburg, fared very well in the Toyota Club Rugby Championships in Durban this year. I think we can pay tribute to these people who are making a tremendous contribution to the community life and the development of this region.

There is another small point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman became so enthusiastic about his own constituency that I recalled the reaction the other day to a remark made by the hon. the Minister of Police that a crop spray had been discovered to get rid of dagga. I think the hon. member will have to think along those lines. Perhaps one can get rid of the locusts in the same way. When I listened to the hon. member’s praise for the mining giants, I thought that if I were attached to one of those chambers of mines, I would ensure that the hon. member received a few shares at least, ex officio of course.

I now want to focus on energy. In his last speech the hon. member for Constantia referred to energy and energy research. Hon. members will recall that three years ago hon. members on this side of the House urged the hon. the Minister to establish an energy research institute at the CSIR. This would be an institute which would be able to co-ordinate and consolidate all research in the sphere of energy, i.e. which could serve as controller and co-ordinator for all energy research. At that stage energy was studied on a far more ad hoc basis at the universities and other bodies. I must say that our plea did not fall on deaf ears, for there was a response to and a national energy research programme was in fact established. The first committee, which consisted of representatives of the CSIR, Government departments and other interest groups, was established under the chairmanship of the late Dr. Chris van der Merwe Brink, to whose death the hon. the Minister referred this morning, and to whom all of us would also like to pay tribute. Dr. Van der Merwe Brink was not only head of the CSIR, the chairman of the committee and the moving force behind energy research, but also a friend of some of us. To many of us he was known as “Oom Chris”. I believe that he was indeed a true “boerseun” who could probably be reckoned to be one of the really great men produced by our country. Not only the CSIR, but the whole of South Africa will miss “Oom Chris”.

At times it is very easily said that not enough energy research is taking place in South Africa. I think this is true, but on the other hand it is equally true that, even if the Government were to give us double the present amount of money to conduct energy research in South Africa, and even if it were to give us more facilities, if we do not have the manpower and the researchers, we would still be unable to undertake such research. Under the auspices of the CSIR we have only nine senior operation leaders, if we can call them that, in the sphere of energy research. One then asks oneself, if one considers who is conducting this energy research, why Black, Brown or Asian researchers are not emerging in this sphere of energy research. Why are they not yet participating in these great challenges? At present there is only one Coloured researcher at the CSIR. He is a senior official, viz. a chief research officer in chemical engineering. One must ask oneself why these people have not yet realized that we have a joint obligation in this important sphere. Have the Government, the CSIR and other persons and bodies perhaps not yet involved these people enough in research in the energy sphere? Should we not try to involve them more actively? I believe that it is essential for the CSIR to carry out a survey to ascertain whether we cannot involve the Black universities, the Coloured universities, the University of Durban-Westville and even the high schools, and publicize the CSIR. Research facilities can be publicized. At present the CSIR is still granting bursaries for engineering studies, etc., but I think the time has arrived to grant bursaries more specifically to those who take courses which involve the area of energy research, so that we can generate these people in our own country. [Interjections.] A very wide field is being covered in the energy sphere. We are, for example, engaged in the substitution of mixtures of diesel and alcohol for diesel fuel. Very good work is being done by the CSIR in that regard. Breakthroughs have already been made, but have not yet been announced, because the results are not yet final. Research is being carried out in the sphere of solar energy, wind energy and wave energy. Research is also being carried out in connection with the perfecting of the silicon photovoltaic cells. This is something in respect of which South Africa could make a break-through. All of us have pleasure in congratulating the CSIR on its fine results and also want to encourage it to try even harder.

I should very much like to dwell for a moment on another form of energy, viz. electricity. In the old days we simply accepted electricity. Today it is an essential form of energy, since it must increasingly take the place of liquid energy, in the form of petrol, crude oil and diesel. Now, I think all hon. members will agree with me that we cannot omit to refer to Escom today—the hon. member for Kuruman referred to the Escom grid in his constituency as well—as the power colossus of our time. Escom is the power colossus of today, but especially of tomorrow. At the end of 1975 electricity comprised 20% of all energy consumption in South Africa. At the end of this century this will be 40%. Now hon. members will also agree with me that we in this House, the public outside, and the Press as well, have for the most part not been very flattering up to now in our criticism of Escom. We cannot get away from that.

When electricity tariffs are increased, all of us say: “It’s that Escom again.” Then the industrialist says that he can no longer compete in the overseas markets and the farmer that he cannot afford expansion charges. When Escom, by way of rare exception, shows a profit, we immediately demand that a committee be appointed to investigate its books. I think this House ought to preserve its objectivity. If we want to do so, we must also examine the other side of the picture. Then we must also examine the achievements of Escom for a change. Surely its electricity production is one of the barometers of a nation’s economy. When our economic upswing started in 1979, Escom was already selling 10,7% more power than in the previous year. What am I actually trying to tell hon. members? What I want to say is that we should go ahead and criticize when mistakes are made, but that we should also express some appreciation. When the demand for electricity increased, not one of us asked whether Escom was capable of meeting that greater demand. Meanwhile Escom has simply carried on with its expansion programme—even during the years of recession. There is no point in our having the money, the labour, the buildings and the industrialists who have to build the factories and when the button is pressed, nothing happens.

When we refer to Escom, I wonder whether hon. members realize what exactly we are talking about. Do hon. members realize that we are referring to an organization which is one of the ten largest in its category in the world, one of the ten largest suppliers of electricity in the whole world? Do hon. members realize what leadership Escom is showing in the world? Let me point out one example. All of us know about the distribution channel for electrical power from Cabora Bassa to Irene, outside Pretoria. Do hon. members realize that that channel in itself holds three world records? It is the longest channel conveying direct current in the world. It is also the channel which conveys the highest direct current tension in the world. Furthermore it is the channel conveying the largest load of electricity in direct current in the world over such a long distance. This is even more remarkable because countries such as England and Germany would not dream of building a coal power station of more than 2 000 megawatt. For Escom, however, it is the rule to construct a coal power station of 3 600 megawatt.

When we then speak of world leadership, we must really also express some appreciation to this great organization. But I want to point out another example. We speak of a constellation of States. We speak of cooperation. We speak of interdependence. Where could we find a better example of this than Escom? Let us take note of certain things. If we go to Komatipoort, we see electrical power flowing from that area of South Africa to Maputo. In the same way we can go to Oshoek and to Swaziland and we shall see how Escom is providing a service to our neighbouring countries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Pretoria East, even partly. I must admit, however, that he has made an intelligent speech this afternoon, a speech with which we will not quarrel. We on this side of the House always reserve the right to criticize the operations of Escom, which, as hon. members know, is largely a monopoly.

On that basis the very important responsibility rests on the shoulders of any public representative to make sure that it is run in the most efficient manner possible. This is the task we have to carry out.

This afternoon I want to speak about something slightly different. I should, firstly, like to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Constantia in saying how pleased we are about the direction the whole energy scene seems to be taking. In South Africa there is a need for a total energy strategy and policy. We seem to be on this road. In this world energy is a very scarce commodity and is becoming even scarcer. Many of the resources that are being used up, are not renewable resources.

What should be the main function of any energy policy? I think there are short-term objectives and long-term objectives. Our short-term objectives should be to aim at reducing our over-reliance on imported petroleum products to zero by the year 2000. This is the sort of objective one should like to give to a department of energy pursuing a constructive energy policy. We know that the usage of energy, particularly that derived from petroleum products, is probably increasing by something like 10% per annum, and if one makes a projection of how much energy we are going to be using in the year 2000, one will see that by the year 2000 we will be using up a considerably greater amount of fuel than we are using at the present time. However, I believe we have to gear ourselves to working towards a situation in which we are not reliant on imports at all.

By what can we replace our present imports of petroleum products? Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is Sasol fuel. I am glad about the statement issued by the hon. the Minister the other day that methanol is not going to be thrown out of the window. I believe that a great deal of our future potential lies in the usage of methanol. I should like to say a little bit about that later on. The hon. the Minister has also expressed himself on the subject of ethanol. Difficulties are experienced with ethanol, especially if it is made from agricultural products of which the source of supply is not always reliable because of weather conditions. I also want to refer to electrification. The electrification of the Railways, for instance, is going to cut down the usage of diesel considerably. Diesel is possibly our Achilles’ heel.

There are other sources of energy that are not specifically related petroleum products, such as solar power, wind power, hydro-electrical power, diesel electricity, nuclear power and even battery power …

And flower power.

… and flower power, as the hon. member says.

As far as methanol is concerned, I think the Government has been quite correct in going for the Sasol process up to now. The Sasolproject was started a considerable time ago. The Sasol 2 and Sasol 3 projects are admirable projects. But I do not think we must reject methanol, because in many ways the use of methanol could be regarded as a better way of using up low-grade coal deposits.

Who is rejecting methanol?

I am suggesting methanol if the hon. the Minister suggesting methanol too?

Who is rejecting it?

Who is rejecting it? Well, I may say that in the debates on energy over the last few years, methanol has not been regarded with a great deal of favour. I can remember arguing about two years ago in favour of methanol and not getting a very positive reaction from that side of the House. What I am therefore doing, is to welcome the hon. the Minister’s initiative in saying that we are not going to throw methanol out of the window, but that we are going to go ahead with it. I think one has to realize that as far as the use of coal is concerned, 43%—and I believe this calculation comes from the Energy Research Institute at the University of Cape Town—more kilometres have been obtained from a given amount of coal by the methanol route than by the Sasol route. This is an interesting statistic. We know that methanol has disadvantages in that, for example, it is bulkier. This affects delivery to petrol stations and involves increased transport costs, increased usage of fuel in delivering it and larger fuel tanks on vehicles, etc. However, it has advantages over ordinary petroleum. I am sure that the two can be completely complimentary. When it comes to the use of methanol and ethanol, difficulties will be encountered as far as the present petroleum and diesel using internal combustion engines are concerned.

I believe that a comprehensive energy policy—I hope the hon. the Minister is pursuing such a policy—must plan for a phased introduction of engine parts which can cope with ethanol blends. As hon. members probably know, there are various alloys which are used in engines, in carburettors, etc., which at the moment cannot stand up to the sort of chemical attack that ethanol or methanol may make upon them. I therefore think that we must now start realizing that we are going to end up with some sort of blend and we must start building engines and using engines that will cope with both ethanol and methanol.

Another interesting side to methanol is that it can be made from natural gas. So far Soekor have been looking for petroleum in our waters off the coast, but has not been successful, although they appear to have been successful in finding fairly large natural gas deposits, and methanol can be manufactured from the natural gases we have already found.

When it comes to the usage of coal I think we assume that the vigorous efforts that are being made to increase the export of our coal resources, are in part to provide the wherewithal—the money, the foreign exchange and the capital—to bring about the energy policy that the hon. the Minister has put forward. I think we must realize that in exporting it, we are to an extent mortgaging our future. In this connection I refer to a very interesting speech made by the hon. member for Berea the other day on the potential dangers of exporting something that we might want to use ourselves for our own manufacturing processes in future. We are a very lucky country in that we have big coal deposits. There are various opinions as to exactly how much.

I was quite interested to see in a document produced by the Energy Research Institute of the University of Cape Town and devoted towards an energy policy—a document called “Energy 1980, an energy policy discussion document”—that they outlined what one would hope to achieve from an energy policy, and I think it is well worth studying by the hon. the Minister. Firstly, they say that the object of an energy policy would be to provide everyone with heat and light at home and at a reasonable price. Perhaps I should just stress the words “at a reasonable price” for the benefit of the hon. member for Pretoria East. Secondly, the object should be to supply industry’s needs for energy at a price which reflects full resource costs and which has regard to long-term availability of the various fuels; thirdly, to satisfy the country’s long-term needs for energy, taking account of the risk of depletion of reserve—and this depletion of reserve is a very important aspect indeed—the need for research and development and capital for energy projects and, fourthly, to allow the consumer the freedom of choice between fuels and to allow him to select the most cost-effective energy source for his need. Therefore I think everybody will admit that it is necessary for any consumer who is thinking of machinery, what machinery to use, what fuel to use, to have available to him different sources of energy so that he can produce the most cost-effective method in his manufacturing process. Fifthly, and one of the very important objects, the object is to provide energy under secure conditions and not to become over-dependent on imported energy sources. As we all know, we are very dependent on imported energy sources at the moment. We are dependent on imported petroleum and we are even dependent to a limited extent on electrical power from Cabora Bassa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity of speaking after the hon. member for Orange Grove today. In the previous few debates he spoke after I did. In any event, I do not have much fault to find with his argument today. He made a fairly good speech today, and I want to congratulate him on it. However, I just want to point one thing out to him. In the statement that the hon. the Minister made, he said very clearly—

This is for alternative sources of energy—

The hon. the Minister went on, but I think the principle has been put very clearly that ways and means have been created under the leadership of this hon. Minister to try to exploit the procession of certain raw materials into fuels subject to certain conditions. On the basis of that, we must extend our congratulations to the hon. the Minister and since I have more of an interest in alcohols, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for what he has done and the possibilities that he has created so that this can in fact be manufactured. There is a very important aspect of the provision and availability of energy within South Africa which one must not overlook. The hon. the Minister referred to it earlier today in his statement. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to it too. In the first place we in South Africa must adopt the standpoint that we must be self-sufficient in our energy resources, particularly with regard to energy that can replace petroleum products. For strategic reasons, it is very important for us to create the alternative resources here. With regard to what the hon. member for Durban North said, we must utilize the natural resources which are available for this.

There is another aspect which one must bear in mind too. In view of what we export and the threats from outside, not only with regard to the availability of energy and mineral resources within South Africa, but also with regard to all other threats, it is essential for South Africa to prepare itself so that it can be self-sufficient. However, there is another very important aspect. Despite threats of boycotting South Africa from outside, it is Government policy not to participate in boycotts, but if it should happen that in this process we should have to use natural resources which may jeopardize the export of certain products, I feel it is our first priority to ensure that South Africa is self-sufficient and not to look to the requirements of other countries, even if food products are involved.

On the basis of this I want to come more specifically to making food products available for energy resources. The hon. the Minister said that in the first place we must give serious attention to methods of making the country less dependent on imported crude oil and petroleum products. In the second place we must also take note of the fact that doors must not be closed in a century of surprising technological progress. Possible incentive measures must be aimed at encouraging the private sector to manufacture these fuels. Furthermore, he said specifically that special incentive measures must be taken or granted with a view to replacing diesel oil.

If one looks at this whole aspect, one must look at the extent to which agriculture as such can be involved. In the manufacture of sources of energy we are dealing with three important components. In the first place there is the provision of the raw material; in the second place there is the manufacture of the product; and in the third place there are the measures which the Government must take for benefits to serve as an incentive for manufacturing these energy resources.

I now refer to the first component viz. the availability of the raw material. We know that a great deal has been said in this regard about maize, grain sorghum, sugar and timber products. In the original statement, problems concerning agricultural products as a whole were specifically pointed out. One of the possibilities that must be investigated, is the availability thereof on the long term. If we look at trends based on historical facts, then we see that with regard to maize, in particular, we will have a production of approximately 14,9 tons available in the country in 1989-’90, with a consumption of 10,4 million tons. If one takes the figures for years for which the projection was made—I accept that they are subject to criticism on the basis of certain arguments that can be raised, one finds nevertheless that the quantity which is going to be exported, increases a great deal.

The second aspect deals with the energy input required to produce the source of energy. I think it is an aspect which one should perhaps see in conjunction with a very important principle, viz. that if any manufacturer of a product sets his mind to it, he must in the first place be assured of a market, and the quantity of input with regard to energy, is not necessarily positively correlated with the energy consumption required to produce that product. It is true that, as far as agricultural crops are concerned, we can produce those products if we are sure of a market and particularly if the price structures are also right. Therefore, it is important in the first place for one to have a market and also to be assured of the price structures that will prevail.

Another aspect that one must look at too, is that, in marketing the products, the raw material should not automatically be made available without any provisos because it would be wrong to tell the agricultural industry that they should make such a product available without being in a comparatively competitive capacity with regard to other markets to a certain extent, when it comes to the quantity and price. These are aspects that we must take into account before we can give an assurance on the availability of a raw material. I think the raw material is available, but we must first obtain clarity with regard to the other aspects. However, this is a question for negotiation as to the profitability for the manufacture of sources of energy.

There is another aspect that is very important in the manufacture of alcohol, and this is that one has a decentralization of industries with regard to agricultural products. Industries can be decentralized in the agricultural sphere to an increasing extent if an infrastructure can be created. This is very important, as other speakers have also pointed out.

In the hon. the Minister’s statement he put it very clearly that there is an incentive for the provision of alcohol. It is also subject to customs duty and the normal Equalization Fund Levy. It is directly related to the energy value of the product which is produced. One may find that in order to protect the Exchequer, one must pay a levy on a certain percentage of one’s energy value, but on the other hand the incentive is in fact aimed at producing energy. That is to say the product that is manufactured and does in fact have a high energy value, is then in actual fact being subjected to higher taxation and the incentive for it is a little less.

As far as the Exchequer and the taxation structure is concerned, the announcement which the hon. the Minister made, is very correct and straightforward, but when it comes to the incentive that it gives for the production of the product, it in actual fact has a negative effect, because the lower the energy value, the greater the incentive which must be given. I want to ask the Minister to take a serious look at this matter.

If it can be brought about and if the producer of the substance can be assured of a market, more stability can be obtained in the agricultural industry and one can also assure the industrialist, by means of the incentive which the Government gives, that as a result of our technological development we can succeed in being self-sufficient as far as the country as a whole is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Carletonville. He is always very interesting and logical in the way he argues and I want to congratulate him sincerely on his contribution today. As he said, this is an important department and we are involved in a very important debate. As far as energy is concerned, we have the same problem as the rest of the world. In our case it can in fact develop into a boycott on imported oil. That is why we must ensure that we will be self-sufficient in this respect.

In the future, when the 20th century is studied, it may be said that the world, as well as South Africa, used its energy resources very carelessly and in fact wasted them. In 1973 we reached the stage where we realized that some of our energy resources were depleted or in the process of becoming depleted. The oil problem also caught the world unawares. Then there are the coal resources with which South Africa is richly endowed. However, we must bear in mind that this source can also be depleted and will not last for ever.

I want to come to a source of energy which we in South Africa may have in excess, viz. solar energy which we do not make much use of as yet. I want to ask that we should see whether this form of energy cannot make a contribution in South Africa too. I definitely think it can. In this regard the Government must take the lead and offer incentives in the research sphere and the provision of capital for the utilization of this source. It is a vast, inexhaustible source. There has not been very good progress with the development of solar energy in South Africa. It can be ascribed to the fact that electricity is very cheap in South Africa in comparison with other countries, or at least it has been in the past. In Japan, for instance, electricity is 70% more expensive than it is in South Africa.

Another source of energy, viz. nuclear energy, can also provide energy in the future. However, as we saw in the newspapers, problems can arise with this form of energy, as was the case in America. This could also occur at Koeberg in the future. That is why we must look to the sun as a source of energy. I am not saying that it should be the only form of energy, but it can at least make a contribution. It is said that one does not get anything for nothing, but one does get solar energy for nothing. This may be the reason why we do not appreciate it. I have already said that the fact that electricity was so cheap, played a role. However, I want to point out that much more rapid progress is being made with the utilization of solar energy in countries like the USA, Israel, Australia and Japan than in South Africa. For instance, in 1974 the US Government spent only R20 million on research in connection with solar energy, whilst at the moment they consider it so important that they spend R250 million per annum on it. The other countries to which I referred, also spend much more than we do on it and have also progressed further.

I want to point out what potential solar energy has. If we were to build a solar panel measuring 50 km by 50 km in the Kalahari, we would be able to produce 100% of our energy requirements there. If we were to build a solar panel measuring only 1 km by 1 km in the Kalahari, it would be able to provide energy to the value of R10 million annually. However, this is a large project and research in this connection would cost a great deal of money. However, we can use solar energy on a supplementary basis in order to heat water. A great deal of success has been achieved with this in other countries.

South Africa lends itself very well to this utilization of solar energy because, like Australia and Israel, South Africa is one of the countries with the most sunshine days in the world. That is why the experts feel that we should spend more on it. In America, for instance, R2 per head is spent on solar energy research. In South Africa at the moment, however, a mere 1 cent per head is being spent on solar energy research. We can definitely take a look at this in South Africa. For instance, heating water consumes approximately 40% of the energy of the household. According to research, nearly 75% to 90% of water heating energy can be provided by solar energy. In a normal household, this may mean a saving of almost 30% of the total energy consumption.

Let us take a look at what this means in terms of the domestic economy. It is calculated that we could obtain almost 40% of our total energy consumption from solar energy. There are other ways in which we can utilize solar energy. Tests have already been carried out for running engines on solar energy. Solar energy can also be used for solar boilers, the desalination of water, the generation of power and drying of harvests. Water heating, however, is one of the most important uses. A certain Mr. Cawood at the Building Research Institute delivered a lecture the other day. He said that our electricity consumption is going to increase drastically under present conditions. He said that a 4,8% increase per annum would mean that South Africa’s coal resources could last for only a limited time, so we must not rely too heavily on coal. He points out that, for example, we have to use 83 million tons per year and that we need a tremendous amount of water for the coal power-stations. It is also said that we spend almost R6 000 million per annum in building these power-stations. That is why he recommends that we should relieve this situation. He also says that the use of solar energy is increasing rapidly in South Africa. An association has already been founded. If one compares the area that was covered by solar panels in 1975 with that which is covered in 1978, one sees that there was an increase from 6 000 million square metres to 16 000 million square metres. However, he says that only a small percentage of South Africa’s energy comes from solar energy. If we continue at the present rate, according to him, we will be able to cover a mere 6% of our energy consumption by solar energy by the end of the year. However, if the Government takes a little initiative in this respect, according to him, it could be 15% by the end of the year. America’s objective is 25% of its total energy consumption by the end of this century. He proposes that the Government should use solar energy for all new Government buildings, for instance schools, hostels and ordinary houses built by the State. It is suggested that solar heaters should be placed in all these types of buildings. He also says that there should be tax concessions for people who install them themselves and that the public should be better informed about the use of solar energy and the benefits of solar heating systems. The Government must also be first in taking the lead with regard to research. A great deal more will have to be spent on this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches support the pleas of the hon. member for Vryheid for more research and a more extensive use of solar energy. We believe this is an important factor for the future. We hope we will see increasing use made of the energy of the sun in South Africa in the years that lie ahead.

This afternoon I should like to deal primarily with the use of liquid fuels in South Africa. I think I have in the past made clear our attitude towards solar and other forms of energy, and we discussed coal in other debates. I should like to refer to liquid fuels in particular and want to indicate that there are many reasons why one should be looking at one particular fuel at this point in time. The hon. member for Orange Grove raised some interesting points about methanol and about the greater number of kilometres one can get out of a ton of coal via methanol as compared to fuel which is made by means of the Sasol process. He made some interesting points and also referred to the modification that would have to be made to the motor-car and truck engines using blends of fuel. However, I think there is one point we should understand very clearly, and that is that at this particular point in time, with the particular vehicles we have and the engines and components that are used in them, there is a liquid fuel which will require the minimum of adjustment, change or replacement. That fuel is of course ethanol. I believe that ethanol could be termed the liquid white gold of South Africa. If we in this House accept when we are looking towards the future the very vital role ethanol could play in the overall field of liquid fuels we will require in South Africa in the future, an absolutely watertight case can be made out for more emphasis to be given to ethanol than to other fuels. Having said that, let me add that we have already made our attitude quite clear with regard to Sasol and the fuels that Sasol produce. When I ask for more emphasis to be placed on ethanol, I accept that the need for Sasols will grow. We have made our stand absolutely clear. The hon. member for Durban North pointed out this morning that we should like to see plans going ahead for Sasol 4, 5 and 6. So I want to say that we see an unassailable position for Sasol and that it will not be challenged by other liquid fuels in any way. We see an ongoing need for the building of Sasols and the products the Sasol process can produce. Having put that in perspective, I still believe that it is important that we give more attention to ethanol. If one considers the various vegetable products from which ethanol can be produced, and if one considers the widely varying agricultural areas of South Africa that lend themselves to the growing of the three major products which are used for ethanol production—I am referring to cassava, sugar-cane and maize—one realizes that, with the different conditions these products require, there are enormous areas of South Africa and the homeland areas that can be used for the growing of the bio-mass that is needed for conversion into ethanol. The different conditions suitable for these three products are lower rainfall areas with only mild frost for maize, very high rainfall areas with no frost for sugar-cane and areas with a lower rainfall for cassava. One can therefore plan intelligently where one is going to grow the raw materials. If one looks at it from the point of view of decentralization, it makes a lot of sense to have smaller plants for the production of ethanol and to scatter them throughout the country in the heart of the areas where the products are grown, rather than to have energy-producing installations such as Sasol, concentrated as they are in areas which are already industrialized to a large extent. Of course one also has a very high concentration of capital, strategically too. The concentration of Sasol 2 and 3 so close together, strategically could present us with problems, and it is not totally desirable to have that proportion of our fuel produced by an installation which is so strategically vulnerable in the sense of its irreplaceability. However, if one were to have ethanol-producing plants of a smaller capacity scattered throughout the country, I believe that that would overcome that problem, and it would also be useful when we think of it that the cost of transport of fuel itself in South Africa is very high.

If one looks at the price on the Witwatersrand, one sees that people there are paying 4c a litre more for fuel than people at the coast. Obviously, the use of the pipeline and the basic cost of transporting that fuel is an important feature, which means that one can decentralize those production capacities and simultaneously contribute to a reduction in the transport costs of fuels. If one looks at the requirements for ethanol-producing plants and the optimum conditions that are necessary, one realizes that the technology is already proven and is already readily available in South Africa. It is indeed a relatively unsophisticated technology. I mention this as a comparison to the Sasol process, which is a very complicated and expensive technology.

The plants for the production of ethanol can be produced from locally manufactured materials of a relatively unsophisticated nature. The operation of an ethanol plant can be handled by relatively unskilled labour at low temperatures and at low pressures, which means that there is much less maintenance on an ethanol plant than there is on a more sophisticated Sasol plant. Much of the subsidiary equipment that is needed, such as fans, blowers, etc., can be locally manufactured. Capital requirements and operating costs are also proportionately very much lower than the very high costs involved in a Sasol plant. An example of this is that for a capital cost of R6 million one can have an ethanol plant which will produce 120 000 litres of ethanol a day. If one were to scatter 10 or 20 of these plants around the country the capital needed is of such a nature that any reasonable-sized company in South Africa can find that capital. In fact, certain companies have already intimated that they are quite willing to put up the capital for these plants.

The end product, the fuel that is produced, must obviously be effective. It must be almost as effective as petrol. It must also be—this is very important in South Africa— capable of extending our existing supplies from petrol and diesel. If one looks at ethanol and methanol in the light of those requirements it is quite clear that only ethanol fits every single one of them. The other advantage is that methanol will require a route via coal. While, in the short term, methanol can be produced more cheaply, we are still using a finite asset. Therefore I should like to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister to consider placing more emphasis on ethanol, because we are using a product which can be grown over and over again, which will not be used up in time, and which will enable us, as the hon. member for Durban North so rightly said this morning, to husband our supplies and our resources of coal. There is no question that we should not use them, but we should husband them and use them in the best possible manner.

I believe that if we give the necessary attention to ethanol, if we have an ethanol research institute, if we were to investigate some of the hybrid ethacanes that are available, whose yields are enormous compared with the canes that are grown strictly for sugar production, I believe we will be doing South Africa a very great service.

Just by way of interest, the sort of cost picture that one looks at is something like the following. If one allows 17,5c a litre for the raw material—the cane cost—5,3c a litre for manufacturing costs, 6c a litre for depreciation, interest on capital and manufacturer’s profit, 10,25c a litre for excise duty and 6,75c a litre on transport, losses and retailer’s profit, one could retail pure ethanol—if it came to the heed for retailing it in a pure form—at 45,8c a litre. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Berea made a very positive, constructive contribution with regard to this question. I should like to tell him that I appreciate what he said. I think the hon. the Minister will be able to give him appropriate replies to the questions that he put. I should like to agree with him on those aspects that he emphasized. He made a very good contribution.

I should like to talk about the energy policy as such. This is a new discipline which has only started enjoying direct attention over the last 10 years. It was chiefly due to the oil crisis of 1973 that the subject as such started receiving general attention.

However, it is also true that over the years, not only from 1973, but even in the earlier decades, the South African Government was already giving efficient attention to the provision of energy on a general basis in South Africa. In view of the fact that it is a fairly new discipline, I should like to say that, as the hon. member for Welkom said earlier on, it is a good thing that a young, energetic and dynamic Minister is dealing with this portfolio. It is appropriate for energy affairs to be dealt with by an energetic Minister.

I just want to say—I am not speaking as the representative of a constituency in which mines and minerals occur now—that a department of Energy Studies has been established at the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit in my constituency. I should like to pay tribute to this department for the good work that is being done in this sphere.

I now want to try briefly, from the material that is available, to give a summary of the energy policy that is being implemented and what has already been done in recent times. Of course, there is always room for improvement. I want to point out a few aspects briefly. The hon. the Minister also referred to these when he replied to a speech by the hon. member for Constantia during the Second Reading debate on Part Appropriation in February this year.

As far as coal is concerned, reserves were gauged as time went on. In this regard I refer to the more than well-known Petrick report. At the moment, however, an investigation is in progress which was set in motion by the hon. the Minister at the end of last year. At the end of this year, a report will appear on the present coal position in South Africa. I think it is essential for this subject to continue to enjoy attention and to be kept up to date.

Other aspects which also have a bearing on coal, are the question of price control, marketing on the local and export market, the creation of an infrastructure for export purposes like the one at Richards Bay, the co-ordination of export allocations and environmental considerations which apply with regard to mine waste, etc. All of these are aspects of a comprehensive energy policy.

Then I can refer to Escom as a provider of electricity, which is also a source of energy. The hon. member for Pretoria East said many fine things about Escom, with which one cannot but agree. Co-ordination is important in the whole set-up of electricity as a source of energy.

Then there is the question of liquid fuels, like oil and everything which is related to it, such as the import policy, strategic stockpiling, the work of Soekor and the work of Sasol. One can accumulate these facts in order to indicate that the Government does in fact have an energy policy that it is following. In this regard one simply has to think of the Fuel Conservation Committee of 1979 and the Sasol 3 project as the results of this policy.

With regard to alcohol fuels: The statement on policy which the hon. the Minister made in February this year and to which hon. members have referred today, afforded the private sector the opportunity of experimenting in this sphere in order to make a contribution in the interest of the country. Consequently, aid to the private sector is also an aspect of the energy policy.

I also want to refer to uranium and nuclear power, without going into it in detail. All of this forms part of a comprehensive energy policy. Research is being undertaken by the National Committee for Energy Research of the CSIR. I think the hon. member for Pretoria East also referred to it. The energy policy is co-ordinated by the Cabinet Committee for Energy, the Energy Policy Committee which falls under the department, and of course by the department itself. If one looks at the latest report of the department, one sees that several aspects of policy are in fact being dealt with by the department itself, which, to my mind, is extremely praiseworthy.

In the sphere of international cooperation, we are also contributing our share through our own policy-forming. Another aspect to which I want to refer, is training, to which other hon. members also referred. In this regard I can simply point out that the department of Energy Studies of the RAU is going to offer an honours course in energy management as from next year. I think it is a very positive, essential development in this direction to make a contribution towards this new discipline which I spoke of earlier.

I have merely pointed out a few aspects briefly. In general, however, I think we can say that South Africa has an efficient energy policy, which has seen us through a difficult time very successfully. Of course, all our problems have not been solved, and things will not necessarily be easier in future, but I think we have had an efficient policy thus far. For instance, one can compare it with that of the USA. The American President at the time, Mr. Nixon, introduced a so-called “project independence” in 1973, after the oil crisis of October 1973. At that stage it was aimed at making America totally independent of oil imports by 1980. That was 1973. At the time it was aimed at doing away with oil imports to America by 1980. However, the opposite happened. Whereas America imported approximately 25% of its oil requirements in 1973, it imported 45% in 1978. I think the failure is due to a lack of policy. There are other comparisons that one can draw too. Recently a survey was undertaken amongst the American people. It became clear from that that half of the population was not even aware of the fact that the USA had to import oil. If we compare this to the rest of the West, I think one can make the general statement that there is a lack of an easily implemented energy policy in most Western countries, which leads to difficult situations for those various countries to deal with.

If one looks at the future, there is definitely a serious need for an energy policy on a continuous basis. There is no doubt about it. Therefore, I should like to stress a few aspects of such an energy policy, whether it be in its existing form, or in forms which may have to receive attention in the future. I think the main objective of an energy policy should be to provide various energy carriers at optimum prices and with maximum prices and with maximum security, with a view to becoming increasingly independent of foreign sources. I think such a policy should be in the best interest of the national economy, and must take into account all forms of energy and all energy consumers. It must take into account the interests of the private sector, which must be involved fully in the drawing up and implementation thereof.

The main problem of our present energy position, of course, remains the provision of fuel for transport purposes. That is why it also remains the most important subject which must receive attention at the moment, but of course there may be a shift in the future. That is why it is essential for there to be an organizational framework, apart from the existing bodies where the co-ordination and planning of an energy policy takes place. One can say that there is a need for a permanent body where experts can draw up and implement energy policy on an on-going basis. In this regard, there is probably also definitely a need for considering alternative energy scenarios on an on-going basis. Research is required for this. Trained people are required for this. These are aspects which must definitely receive more attention.

It has been repeatedly stressed here today that coal remains our most important source of energy. It is calculated that, even if other sources apart from coal should be effectively utilized for fuel for transport purposes, it could provide 20% of the future requirements at most. In other words, we will remain dependent on imported oil and coal for 80% of our energy requirements for transport purposes, whether it be Sasol or methanol. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg West will forgive me if I do not refer to his speech. I should like to discuss a controversial subject, namely coal in the Kruger National Park, and I want to try to complete my argument. However, the principle is much wider than just coal in the Kruger National Park.

Nature conservation areas are selected to be representative of certain types of veld, vegetation and animal life. It would impede this process if other considerations, no matter how important, were allowed to hinder the establishment of our essential nature conservation areas that have been identified on this basis. And this would happen if approval for an area to be proclaimed a conservation area were to mean that other important natural assets, such as minerals, would thereby be frozen for ever.

Obviously, this is not the Vote under which to discuss the norms for or the importance of nature conservation, but my argument with regard to mineral deposits would be incomplete if I did not refer to examples which are relevant at the moment.

A Karoo Park was recently opened at Beaufort West. In considering whether this area should be made available for nature conservation, the question of whether there might be valuable minerals and other things present there, even oil, for the sake of argument, was not even considered. The question of whether the one or the other— nature conservation or mineral exploitation-—should receive priority, was not even posed. If the proclamation of a conservation area had automatically meant that other assets were frozen, then this question should in all fairness have been considered. It seems to me that if the proclamation of nature conservation areas automatically meant that other assets were frozen, there would henceforth be great hesitation in setting aside an area for that purpose.

I hope the Richtersveld is still being considered as a possible nature conservation area. After what I have seen and heard of it, I believe that it should be devoted to that purpose, but if that were to imply that our assets there should be frozen, it would be risky and I am not sure whether such a risk should be run.

Two realities must be faced. In the first place, nature can only be conserved where it is. We cannot place a Karoo Park in the Valley of a Thousand Hills or a Mountain Park in the Kalahari. Secondly, minerals, too, can only be exploited where they are found. The question is whether the occurrence of both in the same area must necessarily lead to a conflict of interests. In case of a conflict, it will first have to be decided which one is the most important. In my opinion, it is very important that everything possible should be done to reconcile the conservation of the one with the utilization of the other. It is unreasonable to adopt a dogmatic attitude in advance by saying that utilization and conservation simply cannot be reconciled, without first considering the relevant circumstances. I believe that utilization and conservation can, under certain circumstances, be practised in such a way that neither need be prejudiced in any way worth mentioning.

Before I come to the Kruger National Park, however, I must point out that the conservation of unspoilt nature has in any case been watered down where this is practicable for nature conservation itself. In this way, millions of rands have been spent in recent years on the building of dams, making use of concrete and steel structures, which undoubtedly also spoil the natural surroundings. Boreholes, for pumping natural underground water to the surface in an unnatural way by means of windmills, storing the water in concrete dams, from where it is conducted to feeding troughs or corrugated iron dams, are commonly found in every conservation area. We try to extinguish fires started by lightning, but we use planned veld fires to increase the capacity of the soil. Although the storage of water in planned grazing areas increases their carrying capacity, it is a form of utilization which owes no less to human artifice than does a coal mine. In addition, we must remember that fires can harm insect and bird life. In my opinion, it is not consistent to commit the one and condemn the other. Why should the utilization of minerals, with due regard to nature conservation requirements, be such an unforgivable sin?

Representatives of the Parks Board, Iscor, the Nature Conservation Society and Geological Survey went to inspect the coal boreholes in the National Park. So little damage have the boreholes done to nature that it was sometimes difficult to spot a borehole from the helicopter in a confined area which had been identified in advance.

I wish to give a brief survey of the history of these drilling activities. After Iscor had discovered coking coal of a very good quality in Venda, along the border of the National Park, Geological Survey obtained permission, after consulting the hon. Minister involved and the Parks Board, to continue the investigation into the occurrence of coking coal in the National Park. The proposed investigation by Geological Survey was disclosed through a Press statement, and it was also said that all information that was obtained would be released to the public in an open file. The survey was begun during 1977, and 25 boreholes were drilled. The coke samples were analysed by Iscor, because they are the experts in this field. The survey and drilling programme revealed deposits of coking coal in the Kruger National Park of a quality to compare with the best in the world. They extend from the Venda border, past Punda Milia, over a distance of 45 km, in which area approximately 1 000 million tons of excellent coking coal is found up to a depth of 300 metres. The survey was concluded at the beginning of 1979, and with that the task of Geological Survey was done.

Subsequently the Parks Board gave permission for another 100 holes to be drilled. However, in September 1979 the hon. member for Orange Grove lodged a complaint with the S.A. Police, but the Attorney-General was not prepared to prosecute. I assume that 25 holes were regarded as a geological survey, but the question arose of whether the drilling of another 100 holes, as had been requested, would also be interpreted as serving this purpose, or whether it would constitute prospecting. I was no longer a member of the Parks Board at that time and I do not know why the Parks Board withdrew its consent for these activities.

It is a fact that good quality coking coal is very rare, and that it is a strategic component for Iscor. Coking coal is found outside the National Park, mainly in Venda territory, but there is so little of it that its exploitation is not an economic proposition. In addition, it is going to cost many millions of rands to create an infrastructure in that territory. Then it must also be remembered that Venda is independent. There are no problems at the moment, but Venda is an independent State and problems may arise. If exploitation is not properly controlled, the pollution of the Levubu River will do more damage to the Kruger National Park than any prospecting would. In addition, I consider it important that the mining activities in that area be allowed to create a growth point. This is one of the areas where we are concerned about the sparse population of our border areas.

The gradient of the coal seams is such that open-cast mine techniques cannot be applied. I contend that exploitation by means of underground mines, and the mine dumps resulting from it, would do very little damage to wildlife. The unattractive appearance of the mine dumps is a problem, but it can be mitigated in the long run.

I have seen a buck licking up water which was dripping from a running pump. I have also seen buck standing in an open shaft, where a bulldozer had been working the day before. Animals get used to activities of this kind if they are not interfered with. I believe that coking coal can be mined in the Kruger National Park without any damage to nature conservation.

That is why I am able to advocate that the Cabinet should be legally empowered to decide to prevent any dogmatic ban on the exploitation of minerals in nature conservation areas. The Cabinet will take such a decision with responsibility. I think that for the sake of nature conservation and of essential development, these things should not be handled in such a way that they necessarily have to clash.

Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with most of what the hon. member for Koedoespoort has said. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you will not believe me, but I am quite pleased that the hon. member for Koedoespoort is a member of this House, because I received reports from the Transvaal Provincial Council that he tended to flirt with the member of the provincial council for Bryanston. So, I must prefer it that he should be here where I can keep an eye on him. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has been congratulated on his appointment by a number of hon. members on both sides of the House, and I would like to add my congratulations to that. If the hon. the Minister remains an energetic Minister I believe that he will make a meaningful contribution in the future to the department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and all that goes with it.

I believe that the hon. the Minister is in fact taking over this department at the very time when a tremendous public awareness is being focused on the need to conserve energy and to find additional energy sources. He therefore has a built-in advantage which his predecessors might not have had, in that he has seen today from all sides of the House a positive attitude of support and encouragement for him and his department. I believe that the hon. the Minister should take the bull by the horns and courageously announce a national energy strategy as part of the national strategy of the Government. It should not be a tentative policy, but a courageous, definite, comprehensive policy for a national energy strategy. If he does that, he will find that not only the various parties in this House, but also the country will give him their support.

I believe that the hon. the Minister should say that it is his intention and that of his department to do a number of things as an integral part of such an energy policy. I think it is not far-fetched to say that, if we really put our minds to it and if we really put our shoulders to the wheel, South Africa can be made independent of oil imports, certainly by the turn of the century and preferably within the next 10 years. There is just one aspect on which I differ from what certain hon. members said in the House, and that is with regard to the contribution which can be made by the production of methanol and ethanol from biological products which will be grown on agricultural land. I just want to sound the following warning: South Africa will have a population of some 40 million people to feed by the turn of the century and I do not believe that we should think in terms of the allocation of agricultural land for the production of products to be used for fuel. There are other alternative sources and I believe that South Africa must conserve its soil and its agricultural production potential to the maximum, because it is going to be food that is going to be vital in terms of maintaining the health of the country and its people and maintaining the peace in this part of the continent of Africa. There is another step I think the hon. the Minister can take.

Will you bear the export losses on agricultural products?

When that stage is reached there will be no export losses as South Africa will require all its agricultural products for its own purposes.

You did not listen to what the hon. member for Carletonville said. [Interjections.]

I believe, too, that the hon. the Minister can take a decision to extend the use of solar energy to the very maximum. I believe there is no reason why all water heating, domestically, in factories and in buildings generally, should not be derived mainly from solar energy. In that case, however, one must not be tentative about such a policy. Certain pressures must be brought to bear, certain steps must be taken, to see to it that that becomes the norm. As regards building, there are 101 regulations that have to be conformed to by people who erect buildings. Why can there not be a regulation requiring that a unit for the generation of solar energy should be installed in all new and existing buildings. Soweto is being electrified and a hot water system will be installed in most of the houses there. Why cannot solar energy geysers be installed there at the outset? A solar energy geyser differs from the normal hot water geyser in that it is linked to a solar energy hot water production cell or panel.

In addition, space heating in South Africa is becoming a thing of the future. Why cannot regulations be included in building regulations at this stage to derive space heating mainly from solar energy? For instance, one regulation that can be changed is the regulation which requires ventilators to be included in all buildings above windows and doors. Through those ventilators about 40% of space heat generation is lost. The hon. the Minister can also take steps to make the whole of South Africa energy conservation conscious. I believe he should work through local authorities. In the local authority area of Randburg an energy committee has been established, a committee aimed at making the local authority and all the citizens in that local authority area energy conservation conscious when it comes to the use of vehicles, buildings, the insulation of roofs and walls and in every other possible way. Involved in this there is also a whole new philosophy when it comes to town-planning.

Having said that there are alternative sources, I just want to refer to one of them, and that is the use of wind energy which has been debated and discussed here before but with regard to which very little has been done in South Africa. There was a time, before the advent of Escom, when every farm in South Africa had a wind-charger and the electricity requirements for the farms, mainly for lighting, were supplied by such a wind-charger. Today technology is far more advanced and equipment is made that can convert even the slightest breeze into electrical energy in order to meet the requirements of any particular farm. I believe, however, that we should go much further than that. South Africa has an unlimited amount of wind available for conversion into energy, particularly where there is a long coastline, because then on-shore and off-shore winds are available at all times. The big problem in the past has been the fact that wind is erratic in terms of its occurrence, its direction and its strength. So it has not been possible, without the application of vast numbers of accumulators, to provide electrical power consistently over a period of time. If, however, wind-generated electricity is linked with pump storage schemes, wind energy can supply all South Africa’s energy requirements. Those requirements can be met in circumstances in which the motive power, namely wind, just like sunlight, does not increase in cost. It remains free for all time. No pollution is caused by the generation of the electricity, there is no cost in fuel and there is very little water loss, because in a pump storage scheme, linked to a vast wind-energy network, no water is lost other than the little lost by evaporation. The water is constantly re-used. The capital costs, which are relative high, can nevertheless be met because they are no higher than the capital costs involved in thermal- or nuclear-generating systems. The maintenance costs can, in fact, also be reasonably low.

With the application of solar energy for water and space heating mainly and wind energy for all other electricity requirements, South Africa could avoid the need for further nuclear energy power-stations and thermal power-stations. We could then stop exporting coal, and all our coal resources which we do not bum for energy we could convert into the production of liquid fuels. We could then meet South Africa’s liquid fuel requirements for many decades to come. I think we should take note of the fact that the report of the commission that sat in 1975 clearly indicates that although we had 25 000 million ton of coal in reserve, some of that coal is of a very low quality. We should also take note of the fact that the extractable anthracite available in South Africa only amounts to 375 million tons and, more important, that the metallurgical resources are only 705 million tons. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat really has a knack of getting under one’s skin. Throughout this debate I have sat and listened quietly, and I want to thank all hon. members for the high standard of debate and the good spirit in which we were able to conduct the debate. Even the hon. member for Bryanston outdid himself and refrained from saying anything that would make us on this side angry. However, there is something I must say at once about his speech. Does the hon. member think that it is so easy to deal with this complicated field that in a speech of ten minutes one can provide a total solution to the problem of our dependence on crude oil? That attests to a naïvité of approach which I cannot help but comment on.

Give me your job; then I shall show you.

Not a single effort has been made to quantify, from an economic point of view, how much any of the hon. member’s plans would cost. I shall discuss the more constructive parts of his speech later. At this stage I just wish to say that if it were so simple, there need not have been a ministry to deal with these matters.

To begin with, I should like to discuss the mining part of the debate, the part dealing with mineral affairs and so on, and then make a few remarks relating to the energy aspects. Before doing so, however, I should like to thank everyone on both sides of the House who has addressed me in such friendly terms and expressed good wishes with regard to my activities in the Department and those of the new officials in the department. I wish to express thanks on their behalf. We are aware of the responsibility resting upon us and we shall attempt to deal with, control and manage this sensitive field in the best interests of South Africa. I thank hon. members for their friendly remarks.

I, too, should like to associate myself with the sympathy expressed by the chairman of the NP’s study group on mineral and energy affairs, the hon. member for Stilfontein, towards everyone who has lost loved ones as a result of mining accidents. Mining accidents remain a serious aspect of our mineral and energy industry. The fact is that we go very deep into the earth to get our gold and that the dangers involved in this work result in a relatively high accident rate. Accordingly I wish to associate myself with him and say that we have the greatest sympathy with everyone who has suffered due to their involvement in this key industry in South Africa. Fortunately there are already positive signs that the hard work which some hon. members have mentioned—the research being done, the new working methods to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, etc.—have already resulted in an improvement in the accident and death rate, albeit a minor one. In 1979, for example, the death rate was 1,15 per thousand and the injury rate 31,8 per thousand. In contrast, the death rate in 1978 was 1,28 per thousand and the injury rate 36,1 per thousand. I am aware that dedicated and hard work is being done by every one in the mining industry to convert this negative aspect into a triumph, a radical drop in the death rate and the injury rate. As far as the Government is concerned, I can give hon. members the assurance that in so far as we are involved by way of control, supervision and inspection by the Government Mining Engineer, we, too, accord high priority to ensuring that the accident rate drops.

Before discussing the specific subjects raised by individual hon. members, I want to begin by touching on the position of the White mineworker in the mining industry. Various hon. members brought this up. The hon. member for Welkom said that the Whites were feeling threatened and insecure. There was also some argument as to who should have a blasting certificate and who should not. It was also said that assurances given to the Whites in the mining industry to the effect that their position would not be prejudiced by the promotion of Blacks, were accepted, but that there was a fear that there would be manipulation in this regard. Hon. members all know that the Wiehahn Commission has to publish a special report about these very aspects. I do not wish to evade a debate on this sensitive matter but I think it would be wrong to make a statement about the merits of the matter with a view to the future before I and the Government have been able to peruse the Wiehahn report in this connection. However I do nevertheless wish to make a few general statements in this specific connection.

In the first place I want to point out that in some circles, the impression is being created that the Government supposedly no longer values its old, traditional and what I would call warm bond with the mineworkers as highly as before. I should like to dissociate myself from any such statement in the strongest possible terms. The Government and those hon. members on this side of the House who represent mining constituencies have the greatest understanding for the problems of the White and Black mineworker, indeed, for the mining industry as a whole, but also specifically for the problems of the White mineworkers, who comprise approximately 10% of the total labour force in our mines. There is understanding and appreciation for the specific circumstances surrounding the labour situation in this industry.

A colleague and predecessor of mine in this department expressed it well some time ago when he said that down below, where the walls are hot and where one’s life depends on a single decision which often has to be taken in a flash, it is different to any factory or any other place. It is a unique industry with a unique history, and in our future handling of labour developments in the mining industry the mineworkers may be satisfied, they may rest assured, that we shall investigate the problems surrounding their profession with sympathy, warmth and understanding, and that we shall be very circumspect in doing what the Government deems to be in the interests of South Africa in the light of the information at its disposal and the advice it receives. I cannot say what will happen or what we are going to do before I receive the report. However, I can confirm that over-hasty decisions will not be taken, that there will be due consultation that talks will be held over as wide a spectrum as possible, and that this will be done with great circumspection.

Before or after the election?

In the second place— and I have said this on more than one occasion in the course of discussions with the representatives of the various employees’ organizations and with the Mineworkers’ Union—we must not confuse the situation in the Black national states with the situation in the Republic. In this regard I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Stilfontein and say, as I myself have already said to the secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union and a deputation from the Union, that as regards the Black man’s position in his own country it is clear that more rapid promotion opportunities must definitely be created for him and that no ceiling whatsoever must be imposed on him. In that regard, too, however, there is something we must guard against and that is a drop in standards. Development in this industry should take place on the basis of good training, on the basis of experience and on the basis of tests to be undergone by everyone, because we are dealing here with an important safety factor. Indeed, we must strive for this in the Black national states and in terms of our agreement with the Government of Bophuthatswana, for example—where we co-operate well in two Standing Committees—we shall strive to ensure uniformity in standards between employees working there and employees working here.

I do not wish to say anything specific at this point as to how certain developments are to take place shortly in the field of labour, for example in Bophuthatswana. At this moment I have the assurance that negotiations are in progress between the Mineworkers’ Union and the two employer companies in question. Accordingly I do not wish to speculate about that now. Perhaps they might come to an agreement which would be acceptable to both the Government of the Republic and the Government of Bophuthatswana. Accordingly I just wish to state that there will be progress and that there must be rapid progress. In the light of the negotiations which have taken place and which are continuing, according to the assurances that I have been given, the original date on which I said I would have to take a decision, has been postponed to the end of the month. Accordingly we are now awaiting the progress report we must receive by the end of the month.

Thirdly and finally I want to say in this connection that we shall keep abreast of developments in the labour field. In this regard I wish to turn to the hon. member for Pinelands, who criticized us for having referred in our annual report to Black workers working in the Republic and coming from Transkei and Bophuthatswana, for example, as coming from the Republic. He said that we had a very strange definition of “Republic”.

I just thought you were looking to the future.

We are looking into the future. Our vision of the future is that a constellation of States should come into being in South Africa. When a State which has formed part of South Africa becomes independent, we shall not turn our back on it, because we want that State to remain in close interaction with us. We want to enter into bilateral agreements with that State and as far as the mining industry is concerned we maintain it and there is good co-operation. These States which form part of South Africa therefore have a special link with us. We do not regard their citizens as foreigners from elsewhere, but as people who have come a long way with us, and who, due to our common interests within this constellation of States, will still go a long way with us. This is why we make special provision for the national States that have become independent but were part of the Republic of South Africa.

They are certainly not part of the Republic now.

We shall have to find formulas if we wish to tackle and carry out the tremendous task of development that still lies before us. We shall also have to find formulas by which to assure all population groups working in the mining industry, of sufficient security so that labour peace can be assured. Just as promotion opportunities are essential to the man who wants to be happy in his work and wants an horizon to strive towards—and I agree with this—it is equally important for the man who has already reached the horizon to have the feeling of security that other people will not push him over the horizon and off the cliff.

I agree.

We will have to cultivate that kind of understanding and we shall have to do so with circumspection.

†I come now to the various speeches made by hon. members. In the first instance I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia for supporting me in my plea that we in this Chamber should, as one, ask of the West to ensure an atmosphere internationally that will enable us to continue delivering to them the minerals and the energy carriers we are delivering to them at this moment. But he added a rider, namely that we should have the ability to defend ourselves and that our ability to defend ourselves should be strengthened by our ability to solve our racial problems. I have no problem with that. I have said that in Germany and America, and I am quite prepared to say here that our friends can ask of us to work towards solutions of the internal problems facing us and which may disrupt the availability of our commodities which we offer to them. I, in turn, also want to add a rider to this and ask the hon. member if he will concede to this. It should be acknowledged that the Government, through its new initiatives and through what it is doing, can be expected to ensure the sort of stability that is necessary. Our record proves this, and we need to tell the whole world that we are absolutely unified in ensuring peaceful solutions in South Africa. We need to tell the world that, because we need their confidence in our future. There has been too much talk lately that we are not being successful, too much talk of war, of bloodshed and that sort of thing. I am not accusing the Opposition of that, but what I am saying is that I would like them to acknowledge that what we are busy with is aimed at a just and equitable solution. Although they may not agree with the methods or with the philosophy that we try to apply, it is indeed aimed at a just and equitable solution, and we are doing it with so much sincerity and conviction that there is reason to be hopeful for the future. Does the hon. member for Constantia shares that hope with me?

I share your hope.

Thank you very much. The hon. member addressed himself to the role of coal from an economic and energy point of view, and I want to thank him for delivering a valid defence of our decision to export coal. Worry does exist in some circles about our decision to export coal, but I think he has sufficiently answered the hon. member for Bryanston by indicating how important it is that we should export coal and how sensible from an economic point of view, it is that we do so. From my side, I just want to add that from a reserve point of view the decision to export 40 million tons of coal and four million tons of anthracite per annum over a period of 30 years, is well founded and can scientifically be defended. Geological Survey in our department is doing a reassessment of our reserves, and I hope that when next we have this debate their report and the final results of their investigation will be available and that we will then be able to talk about this matter with fresh facts in front of us. I, however, am convinced that there is nothing to worry about from the point of view of reserves.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Stilfontein sincerely. As he sits there, he is a sick man. You should have seen him come in, Mr. Chairman. He is walking with great difficulty at the moment, and the fact that he has been able to carry out his duties as chairman of our group when he ought to be in bed, attests to his interest in the mining industry, and we are grateful to him. This hon. member emphasized the importance of uranium and coal; uranium’s growing importance and coal’s renewed importance in the light of the world energy crisis. I want to say to him that I share absolutely his confidence in the demand for these two products in the Western world. During a recent visit to Germany, where I conducted discussions over a wide front, I reached the conclusion that in that country, which may be regarded as one of the technological leaders of the world, there was no doubt that nuclear energy and electrical energy generated by coal will be the two methods which the world will have to utilize to a growing extent to bridge the energy gap which is arising due to the scarcity of oil that is going to occur and the cost. They believe that this is inevitable. Despite the opposition from among their own ranks with regard to environmental aspects, they see no other replacement in the short and medium term, over a period of 20 to 30 years, which can provide enough energy, and they say it will have to be coal and nuclear power stations. Accordingly there will be a greater demand for uranium, and the pressure on all the coal resources of the world, particularly those resources which provide coal relatively cheaply, will grow and increase. The really long-term solutions, they believe, are still in the laboratories of the world. There is a struggle to find solutions, and at this stage no solution can yet be absolutely identified by the energy experts with whom I have spoken in South Africa and abroad since I have occupied this portfolio; there is none which can make a total contribution equivalent to that which oil and coal, for example, have made, and which coal is going to make again.

Much has been said about explosives. The hon. member for Stilfontein, for example, referred to explosives. In a moment I shall discuss that in more general terms. Somewhere there must be confusion. According to statistics which were consulted in terms of a special instruction from me concerning accidents that could be connected with explosives in mines, there were 120 accidents in 1979. No Whites were killed, but 20 non-Whites were. Twenty-four Whites were injured as against 152 non-Whites. This therefore gives a total of 176. In 1978, 27 people were killed and 171 injured. These figures are therefore somewhat lower than those quoted by the hon. member. We can clear up the misunderstanding.

My figures related to the last ten years.

But these figures are still disturbing, and one would wish to eliminate every single death or injury as far as possible. Relative to the total number of workers, however, this is an extremely small percentage. I shall come back later to the question of explosives and the disadvantages they involve.

The hon. member for Durban North made a very good speech.

†I congratulate him. He prepared himself very well. It was a positive speech. Although everything he pleaded for is not feasible, I do agree with his general sentiments. He asked for a total strategy and then referred specifically to beneficiation as a very important leg of a good and positive total strategy. He even pleaded for the immediate erection of Sasols 4, 5 and 6 with foreign capital and foreign involvement. He said we must export fuel and not coal. With regard to his approach vis-à-vis a total strategy, he can rest assured that within the framework of the hon. the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of a total strategy, the importance of minerals and energy is definitely receiving proper attention. I want to remind the hon. member, however, that one of the cornerstones of our philosophy is the maintenance and development of the private enterprise system. Whereas mining is in the hands of private enterprise in South Africa, it would be a negative development for the Government to interfere and to prescribe to private enterprise. Much of what he proposed is viable for private enterprise, and there is nothing to stop them. I am on record as having said that nothing prevents any private company from erecting a fuel manufacturing plant along the lines of Sasol. If the technology of Sasol can be made available to the USA, one can rest assured that it is also available in South Africa to any company. Therefore he should also address his plea to private enterprise. Obviously the Government has a role to play, but it must be played in the spirit of the existing relationship between the private and public sectors in respect of mining and minerals.

*I now come to the specific subject which the hon. member discussed, namely beneficiation. I also wish to refer to what was said in this connection by the hon. member for Kuruman and then say a few words about this subject in general. Of course the Government wants to see beneficiation of our metals and minerals to a greater extent before they are exported. We are in favour of that, but it is not a matter which raises no problems. Beneficiation implies the application of energy and technological skill to a raw material. In other words, when the final product is sold, it entails the sale of raw material plus technology plus energy. South Africa does have sufficient energy, but manpower with the necessary knowledge and training is limited, and our energy resources, too, are not unlimited. Over the past number of years a great deal has been done to increase South Africa’s foreign earnings by processing our minerals to an increasing extent. Typical examples of this are increased exports of steel, stainless steel, iron alloys, phosphoric acid and vanadium pentoxide. The Kruger Rand is an example of beneficiation, and a great deal can still be done. Theoretically, with its relatively cheap electrical power, the Republic could become economically competitive as regards processed metals on the world market, to its great advantage. Therefore I wish to give the assurance that we are giving attention to beneficiation within the framework of the limitations of our manpower, when it is a matter of highly skilled and technically trained people, of whom we have a shortage, and as regards our limitations from an energy point of view with regard to liquid fuel. Within this framework we are well-disposed in this regard and we should be far more inclined to help the private sector in this regard than obstruct them. It is also true that in general, there are export schemes in terms of which, if one complies with the provisions and conditions attaching thereto, the Government could also help and make a contribution. In terms of the decentralization benefits it offers, too, there are various possibilities in connection with assistance for beneficiation, and the Government is very sympathetic in this regard.

I now wish to refer to a typical example in our field. We have been approached from two quarters to give our standpoint on the export of methanol. We asked the Energy Policy Committee to go into this very thoroughly and to make a recommendation to the Government, and on the basis of their investigation and recommendation, the Government could decide to adopt the principle that methanol could be exported. Certain conditions will be set. The wording and the specific content of those conditions are being worked on in co-operation with other departments concerned. I can already tell hon. members that this will at least have to be subject to the condition that only low-grade coal will be used. It will also have to be subject to the condition that South Africa’s own methanol requirements must first be satisfied and that only the surplus may be exported. However, this decision entails a tremendous increase in the value of that low-grade coal. We have the technology and in that field there is no manpower problem. Therefore this could be tremendously important for South Africa. We therefore have a positive approach, and are proving it by being as good as our word.

In conclusion I wish to say to the hon. member that one of the problems attached to the other visions he saw, is that of cost. The fundamental problem, however, is that in view of what it is currently still experiencing with regard to oil, the West, like us, is striving to be as self-sufficient as possible and prefers to manufacture as much as possible of its energy domestically, from a strategic point of view. They will perhaps only wish to be exposed to the risk of importing raw materials rather than putting all their eggs in one basket, as was often the case with regard to oil, and having all their energy generated in a country like South Africa, for example. I think therefore that the hon. member would have difficulty in obtaining significant support abroad with regard to energy that must be fully processed here before being exported, because each of them, like us, will strive to achieve the highest degree of independence with regard to energy.

I now come to the hon. member for Virginia. He asked that everything possible be done to keep our mineworkers contented and happy. He then pointed out very effectively what has already been done. The list of benefits and special measures he was able to point to is indeed impressive and attests to the positive attitude of the Government over a period of 30 years with regard to the mineworker. I thank him for having pointed these things out to us in such a positive way. However, he added that there were still complaints. First he asked that pensions should not be paid out but that instead, pensions be made transferable. In this regard he will recall that a committee was appointed, I think it was two years ago—at that stage I was still Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions—with the specific aim of investigating the compulsory transferability of pensions. My information is that that committee is rounding off its work and nearing the completion of its terms of reference. We shall probably hear all about this from the present hon. Minister of Welfare and Pensions shortly. We agree with what the hon. member advocates, namely that there should be transferability of pensions, and in fact we have introduced machinery to work out how this can be done in South Africa with the least possible disruption.

I also agree with the hon. member’s general statement that the pension situation in the mining industry is totally unsatisfactory. When I opened the annual meeting of the Mineworkers’ Union, I used the opportunity to call on them to emphasize, in their negotiations with employers, the obtaining of improved pension benefits for their members and perhaps de-emphasizing direct benefits, for example in the form of immediate salary increases, and perhaps sacrificing something, so that in the long term their members could enjoy the non-inflationary benefit of improved pension benefits. Nor, in the course of discussions with a representative of the Chamber of Mines, did I omit to stress that in my opinion this was a matter which deserved attention.

Having said that, however, the fact remains that the pension of the mineworker is not a Government pension, but a pension which, like any other pension, derives from a pension fund established in terms of agreement between employer and employee. The State cannot interfere because it is not its pension fund. As in the case of all other types of employee, the State is always prepared, by way of its social pensions, its disability pension schemes and all the other concessions controlled and regulated by the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, to assist those people who are really in need.

The second point was that the situation at the Medical Bureau should be investigated. The hon. member for Welkom also referred to this. It has been said that sufficient tact and humanity have not always been shown there. Looking at the Medical Bureau—the hon. member for Krugersdorp made a very positive contribution in that regard—one sees that the department and the bureau, in my experience, have left no stone unturned to investigate justified complaints of mine-workers and to streamline procedures that have caused inconvenience. I must say that since I have occupied this post I have not yet received any complaint about anyone being treated badly or inhumanely. All the complaints I have received have concerned the finding as to whether someone should be certified or not. However, if there are problems in this connection and they are submitted to me, I can assure the hon. member that I shall have the matter duly investigated. If there are practices that give offence, we shall try to have them changed. I can assure the hon. member that the management of the bureau adopt the attitude that where there are bottlenecks, they must be eliminated, and that they adopt a positive and constructive attitude of co-operation.

Thirdly, the hon. member asked why a worker who had tuberculosis should receive less compensation than a person with pneumoconiosis. Basically, the reply to that is that the one is an occupational disease while the other is not. Tuberculosis, in contrast to pneumoconiosis, is not a recognized occupational disease. It is an ordinary infectious disease which does not necessarily have to be linked to the mineworker’s profession alone. As we all know, it often occurs among people who have never been near a mine. If tuberculosis is diagnosed timeously, it can be made inactive and the mineworker who suffers from it can carry on with his normal work. However, when a worker has tuberculosis and in due course it becomes clear that he also has pneumoconiosis, he is granted an allowance after it has been certified that he has tuberculosis. Later, an additional payment is made to make up the difference. Therefore there are sound medical reasons for making a distinction. Therefore, unless the hon. member can come forward with other facts, I do not think he made a case for changing the present procedure.

The hon. member for Randfontein and the hon. member for Rustenburg made outstanding pleas in which they showed how important minerals can be in the future development of the Black national States and how we are in earnest—when one considers how minerals are divided among the RSA and the Black national States—in giving these Black national States those things that form part of their traditional land. They indicated how we are not trying to retain those things that could be remunerative for us, but rather, are prepared to entrust a large percentage of the world’s reserves—and not only South Africa’s reserves —entirely to Black independent Governments—for example, that of Bophuthatswana. If these two speeches are read together, they afford a reference framework for anyone who wants to find arguments to indicate that the Black national States which possess minerals have a brilliant future, and to indicate how we utilize this wealth in an honest implementation of our policy, viz. to let others have that which we demand for ourselves.

†The hon. member for Pinelands quoted figures with regard to the labour employed on the mines. He said, inter alia, that a mere—and he stressed the word “mere”—78 061 Whites worked in the mines.

In relation to the total.

Yes, they represent more or less 10% of the total. Basically I have already dealt with this subject, but I just want to add that it is not only numbers that are important. Vested rights are also important, as is also the role that these workers play. Therefore I did not like his belittling …

No.

… of the role of the White mineworker in the mining industry.

You heard what else I had to say.

The hon. member also says that Black miners are not getting a fair deal vis-à-vis life insurance and in the event of accidents. I also am troubled by this aspect. Let me tell the hon. member that I am not happy about the present state of affairs, and he can rest assured that this will be a matter for discussion between myself and the relevant bodies from time to time. I shall keep that in mind.

*The hon. member for Welkom asked for a gratuity after a certain period of service irrespective of the state of health of the worker. He also referred to the Nieuwenhuyzen Commission. It is hoped that that commission’s report will be received shortly. The hon. member, who is not present at the moment, will understand that I cannot anticipate the report. However, I have taken cognizance of his plea. I have also taken cognizance of the fact that hon. members on this side of the House have taken the trouble to submit evidence before that commission, and they will understand that in the nature of the matter I must first take cognizance of the report itself before being able to advise the Government as to what a well-considered decision would be. Therefore I should prefer not to discuss it in too great detail at this stage.

†The hon. member for Berea referred to the problem of noxious fumes resulting from the explosives that are used. I have to hurry, and therefore I shall have to be somewhat more brief. Other hon. members also referred to this question, and the problem of explosives and its inherent danger. The hon. member for Berea also told us about new explosives, i.e. water-gel, which is available and which he says could reduce the problem of noxious fumes. He pleaded that the SABS should categorize explosives on the basis of the hazards involved. The position is that, firstly, we are not doing nothing in this regard.

At the moment we also know about the new development in the field of explosives, and at present a very senior member of the Government Mining Engineer’s staff is in the USA, and one of his tasks is to look into this matter more carefully and to bring back a report, on the receipt of which we shall be in a much better position to consider the situation and to decide whether steps are necessary and, if so, what we should do. I can give him the assurance that we will investigate this and that we are definitely keeping it in mind. I do want to say, on the other hand, that we are not just sitting back. We have some very strict regulations. We have some very strict regulations with regard to the dust conditions. There is, for instance, a re-entry period laid down separately for each mine by the inspector of mines to prevent people from being exposed to harmful gases. Therefore, after a multi-blast operation is completed, there has to be a restricted period during which no one is allowed to enter the mine. The fumes must first disperse and the air be cleaned by the air-conditioning system. Only then are people allowed to go in. We do therefore have control. We have regulations and we try to apply them as strictly as possible to minimize the risk of any mining employee breathing in noxious gases. However, I shall keep this in mind. We are au fait with the new developments and there will be discussions on this matter in the future.

*The hon. member for Namaqualand made two pleas. The first was his request that more attention be given to the small mining entrepreneur. He motivated his case well, and I just wish to say to him that we adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the small mining entrepreneur just as we do with the small entrepreneur in general. However, it is interesting to note that despite the fact that there is a specific section in the Mining Rights Act in terms of which the Minister and the department are empowered to grant aid, we have received virtually no requests in this connection. I want to refer him to section 162 of the Mining Rights Act of 1967, where he will find that such authorization does exist. Perhaps he could ask small-scale mining enterprises which he thinks are experiencing problems to take a look at this and suggest to them that they contact the department in order to determine on what basis specific problems could be investigated. I also wish to tell him that that is of course not the only state institution which could help him. The hon. member asked that the decentralization benefits be extended, which is not my affair, as he realizes. However the State is already assisting these enterprises in several ways. If the hon. member wants to look at the small mining enterprises, he will see how small mining enterprises are often made viable by the creation of an infrastructure at the provincial level via State corporations and the central Government. Therefore the approach is one of provision of assistance, but not one of mere subsidization. As the hon. member knows, our basic philosophy is opposed to subsidization, and we ask that people should rather plan their undertaking on the basis of economic factors and find their own way. However, he mentioned certain factors which compel me, if it is physically possible and if a good case can be made for it, to investigate a way in which aid could perhaps be considered in terms of the section mentioned.

In the second place, the hon. member referred to the question of marine diamonds, and in this regard he made a plea on behalf of Namaqualand. I wish to point out that there are still a number of sea areas along the West Coast where prospecting rights have not yet been granted. Areas 1 and 3 are adjacent to the State’s alluvial diggings at Alexander Bay, while area 4 lies just to the south of Port Nolloth. This area, which extends from the Olifants River to Cape Columbine, is also still open, and I am considering dividing it into four areas— which we shall refer to as areas 13, 14, 15 and 16—since they are too large for one undertaking. I am also considering opening these areas south of the Olifants River for prospecting. However, no decision has been taken about this. At present the department, using the best data at its disposal, is drawing up conditions and minimum requirements with which applicants for such areas will have to comply and when they have been accepted, full details will be made known so that interested parties may apply.

Then I just wish to point out that consideration must also be given to the introduction of a committee to assist me in assessing these applications. However with regard to areas 1, 3 and 4, consideration will only be given at a later stage to opening them up for prospecting. It is not being considered at this stage. The hon. member for Krugersdorp made a moving plea for a round table conference on the medical bureau. I believe in round table conferences. In the past I have conducted a number of such conferences. Once again, however, no case has thus far been put before me by the employees’ representatives in the sense that they have raised it. I think that they too are awaiting the Nieuwenhuyzen report, as we all are, and that after that we can take this situation further by way of a round table conference in so far as problems may exist in connection with the Bureau. However, I want to thank the hon. member for his sound elucidation of the matter and assure him that I am open to such a round table conference.

I have in fact already replied to the speech by the hon. member for Kuruman. He discussed beneficiation. I have already reacted to that. However, I also wish to point out to the hon. member that the State corporation for which I am responsible cannot carry out beneficiation in his region because there is no coal or uranium there. Therefore he should rather approach Iscor’s people to hear whether they do not perhaps wish to carry out beneficiation there. That does not fall within my sphere of responsibility.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort made an interesting speech about nature conservation areas. He asked that if conservation, and on the other hand development, are both necessary at the same time in an area of natural beauty which is also a mineral area, we should reconcile these two things. I think it is a correct approach that in the interests of the country we should try to achieve both if at all humanly possible. With regard to a specific problem in the Kruger National Park, the hon. member made a good contribution, particularly, in my opinion, in putting in perspective the problems surrounding the issue of coking coal in the Kruger National Park. The hon. member will realize that this does not fall directly within my jurisdiction but that another hon. Minister is responsible for it. As Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs I do of course have an interest in the matter, and I can assure the hon. member that the plea he made today will not be considered by me alone but that I shall also convey it to my hon. colleague. I think the hon. member has assisted in putting the matter in perspective, and I hope that everyone who takes part in discussions of this complicated and sensitive matter will discuss it in as calm, balanced and sober manner as this hon. member did today.

I now come to energy affairs, about which I had the privilege of making a full speech during the part appropriation debate too. Therefore I am going to be more brief in discussing it today and will spend more time on the minerals aspect.

The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Vryheid asked that we give more attention to solar energy. The hon. member for Vryheid went on to furnish us with interesting facts in this regard, for which I wish to thank him. However, if we consider what has already been done, hon. members must realize that research is being carried out over a wide spectrum already. Research is being carried out by the National Building Research Institute of the CSIR. Also at the CSIR, at the National Institute for Mechanical Engineering, research is being carried out into the utilization of solar energy for cooling systems. Research is being carried out at the Agricultural Engineering division of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services into the application of solar energy in agriculture. Various universities are engaged in solar energy research. Their projects include research into the conversion of solar energy into mechanical energy, the development of solar stoves and solar ovens, and the manufacture of photovoltaic cells for the direct conversion of solar energy into electricity.

Then, too, apart from all this research, there is also that which has already been achieved in regard to solar water heaters, a matter which I shall come back to later. Therefore there is a wide field of research and it is being conducted across a broad spectrum. There is interaction and contact among the research structures, as I have described to the hon. member on a previous occasion. However, hon. members asked— and their question is justified—whether more should not be done. They asked whether we are really doing enough in South Africa, with our many sunny days. South Africa is in the fortunate position that approximately 77% of its primary energy requirements are provided by indigenous resources, chiefly coal, and that only 23% is obtained from imported crude oil. Moreover, 97% of the country’s electricity is generated in coal-fired power-stations. Solar water heating systems are being marketed and installed in urban areas at present. Therefore we already have an alternative energy source which, in effect, brings about a saving of coal.

When one considers what we are achieving, and we look at the country’s relatively large coal reserves, one sees that the conservation of relatively small amounts of coal in this regard is not of the same importance for the country as, for example, the saving of imported crude oil. We must therefore only regard this as a question of priorities, and realize that the conservation of coal by the use of solar energy is not so important to us at this stage that we should concentrate on new developments which would make us less dependent on imported crude oil. However, that is not to say that we must neglect this. We are indeed devoting a great deal of attention to this matter. We are often referred to how much is being done in Israel and Japan, for example. But why do they regard their own energy resources as being of such a high priority? Israel imports 98,1% of its primary energy in the form of crude oil, while Japan, in turn, imports 76% of its energy in the form of crude oil. For this reason this is of vital importance to them, because they are being hit by the oil shortage. Accordingly they do not simply want to import coal in the place of crude oil; they are seeking something else. We, on the other hand, have something in the place of crude oil, and we must concentrate our primary research on developing what we have, namely our agricultural products and our coal, in such a way as to solve our primary bottleneck first, while all the other matters can receive attention at the same time.

A great deal has been said about solar water heating. In South Africa there are 42 companies marketing solar water heating systems. If there are 42 companies competing with one another, why should the Government interfere, enter the industry and prescribe how these systems are to be purchased and installed? I have been asked to lay down that these systems be installed in all Government housing. There are other researchers that are also developing energy saving systems in other fields. For example, there is one system that I know of in which electricity consumption for the heating of water is restricted to a minimum. It uses virtually no electricity because the system is linked to the actual amount of water used and not to a container in which water is heated. Why should I favour solar energy above other inventions which could conserve just as much energy? We want these various methods to prove themselves in competition with one another.

The hon. member for Pretoria East made a plea on behalf of Escom. I think Escom will feel very welcome under the umbrella of this department. They are only falling within the jurisdiction of this department as from 1 June. I want to thank the hon. member for having given a balanced view in connection with an important matter. I fully support his plea and hope that Escom will know that they are welcome with us, particularly in view of the hon. member’s speech. He also concentrated on energy research and provided interesting data, and this makes the task I have to perform here today an easier one.

The hon. member for Carletonville made a plea for ethanol. The hon. member for Orange Grove made a plea for methanol. Then the hon. member for Berea also made a plea for ethanol. One can perceive the problem from this alone.

Who is winning? Ethanol?

The problem is that one hon. member makes a plea and makes out a good case for ethanol, and another hon. member makes a plea and makes out a good case for methanol. At this point I wish to try to put paid to an illusion. After all, we did not make a choice between ethanol and methanol. We did not make any decision to the effect that it would be methanol or ethanol. What we did do, and what I stated clearly and unambigiously in my Press statement, was the following, and I quote—

I then dealt with certain problems concerning which the hon. member for Carletonville levelled some friendly criticism, as he is fully entitled to do, and added that we should discuss them a little, and I am prepared to do that. Then I went on to say—

The concession is being granted equitably. There is the distinction that the concession is calculated on energy value, and because it is calculated on energy value, there will be a minor difference. Expressed in real figures, ethanol will get a little less than methanol. The hon. member for Carletonville differed with me in this regard. He said that in his opinion it was illogical to link it to energy value. In the very short time at my disposal I just want to point to one small example to show why it is indeed logical. The lower the energy value of a product, the greater its volume. The greater its volume, the greater is the cost of transporting it to the distribution points; in other words, the product with a lower energy value has the disadvantage of higher distribution costs than the product with the higher energy value. Therefore it is logical perhaps to give the product with the lower energy value a somewhat larger concession on its lower energy value than the one with the high energy value. That is only one aspect of the logic. The hon. member could perhaps in turn advance other logical arguments supporting the contrary position. However, I wish to tell him that this was really an effort to obtain a fair formula in terms of which one can assist everyone who wants to enter this dynamic sphere, and to do so on a scientific and not a discretionary basis.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. member for Bryanston discussed energy policy and energy strategy, each in his own way—the first in a positive way and the second in a relatively negative way—and with that I wish to conclude. I dealt with this aspect in detail in a previous speech and I am not going to repeat a word of what I said then. However, let me just say that not only do we in South Africa have a comprehensive policy, as I indicated earlier, but hon. members must perceive that this comprehensive policy is one of limited independence. By implication this means optimum development and utilization of local sources of energy, linked to controlled energy trading on the world markets.

Despite the apparent attractiveness of total energy independence, which is indeed possible, and which one should undoubtedly regard as a possible long-term target, the investment of large amounts of capital in specific energy projects means, and consequently leads to, a long-term commitment to this project. Rapid technological change and other changes may cause some of these projects to fall into disuse. Accordingly, a flexible approach is regarded as being more appropriate for South Africa at this stage. In this way the country will be in a position to satisfy its energy requirements to the optimum extent, taking into consideration all factors, for example availability of resources, capital, export markets and technological change. Therefore I just wish to repeat that the hon. member for Johannesburg West put it in a nutshell when he perceived that there had to be interaction and flexibility in energy policy and strategy, that it was not a simple crossword puzzle, as the hon. member for Bryanston tried to suggest, where we will live happily ever after. That is simply not the case.

I am not going to help you any more.

The economy of the matter, the manpower situation and capital available, together necessitate our incorporating a degree of flexibility in our energy strategy.

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

Certainly.

In connection with the nuclear fuel requirements of the Koeberg reactor, there are certain deficiencies in the circuit of fuel formation and reformation. Since the reactor is going to come into operation within a mere two years, is it not time that those deficiencies are eliminated?

The whole question of the development of Koeberg and problems that are foreseen in that regard are the subject of negotiation. This is being looked into. The hon. member may rest assured that the matter is being investigated. I should prefer to invite him to discuss the matter in my office. I am already five minutes over my time and I cannot do justice to the subject in public debate now.

Very many thanks to all hon. members for their contributions, and to all who were responsible for the preparation of background information that made it possible for me to furnish hon. members with a few illuminating facts. In particular I thank hon. members for the good spirit of the debate. I am really looking forward to next year’s debate. If we can continue with this constructive form of debate, we shall do well.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate stage for us in these benches not only to restate our reasons for opposing this particular measure, but also to look at one or two of the consequences of the Bill should it become law.

I want to say at the outset to the hon. the Minister who is in charge of this Bill that we are extremely disappointed that a Bill which in the first instance, seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, but also amends it in respect of the balance between the legislature and the executive, has been dealt with solely on a party-political basis. We believe, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister is the chairman of a commission which is examining a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa, that this measure should never have come before the House save on the recommendations of the Select Committee of last year or the Schlebusch Commission of today. We want to express a very real sense of disappointment that after a commission was appointed to examine the Constitution of South Africa and to argue the case for amendments to that Constitution, the commission was immediately bypassed by the Government putting a party-political measure before the House. In this action of the Government can be seen the difference between its point of view and the PFP’s point of view in relation to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. We have said before that we do not consider the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa to be merely another piece of legislation or to be merely another reflection of one party’s point of view. The Constitution of South Africa reflects the rules of the game, the framework within which we all operate and is not something that should be changed unilaterally or upon the whim of one or other Cabinet. We believe it should be sent to a committee representing the people of South Africa so that it could make a recommendation on it.

Secondly, this does not only affect the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, but it actually affects this Parliament. I believe that we in this House should be jealous of Parliament. We have certain sovereign rights as a Parliament. Parliament is, in fact, the highest legislative body in this land, and I would have thought that the Government, and in particular the hon. the Minister, who is a sensitive Minister, would have been sensitive about Parliament per se.

You want to give it away.

I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would not come to this House with an amending Bill affecting the rules, proceedings and influence of this House without first trying to get inter-party agreement. There was no discussion with the Whips of the various parties on this measure. There was no inter-party discussion. The matter was not referred to a Select Committee of this House. It was not even referred to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, although it is going to affect our Standing Rules and Orders. For instance, Standing Order No. 199 says that no strangers shall be present. Strangers are defined as people who are not members of Parliament, and members of Parliament are defined as being members of either the Senate or the House of Assembly.

That is why we have a new definition.

The Bill says that for the purposes of the powers and privileges of Parliament a member who is not a member of Parliament shall be deemed to be a member of Parliament. This is a slight on Parliament and on all of us. The hon. the Minister is actually saying that a person who is not a member of Parliament shall be deemed to be a member of Parliament for certain purposes. I believe the hon. the Minister should give us an explanation why it was not in the proper course of events discussed with other political parties, why it was not referred to the commission considering a new Constitution and why was it not referred to the highest ranking committee in Parliament, namely the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

We think that that would have been the proper course to follow. Not only would it have defined the fact that it is an amendment to our Constitution; it would also have given recognition to the fact that it is going to change the appearance of this Parliament and its impact on the political process in South Africa. Let me repeat that we see a fundamental difference between changing an ordinary law and changing the Constitution of South Africa. If this Government believes that it can steamroller Bills through this Parliament, mutilating the Constitution to suit itself or to suit the hon. the Prime Minister or to suit somebody else from time to time, they are in fact destroying the foundation upon which the government of South Africa is built. I want to tell them that it is a dangerous game, because other people will ask: “What is the Constitution of South Africa? Is it really important? Is it really the cornerstone of government in South Africa, or is it just like the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act or the Immorality Act, something which has no morality?” We ask of this Government to be particularly careful in a country in which there is a sensitive political situation, sensitive not only between the various racial communities, but also between the Government and the Opposition, that they should always strive to see that when the Constitution is amended, particularly when it is amended in a way which affects Parliament, they should never ride roughshod over minorities. They should always try to seek agreement before they come to Parliament with such amending Bills.

I should like to look once again very briefly at what is a very brief Bill, a four-clause Bill, including the title. The first clause offends the very basic principle upon which our system of government is based, and that is that a Minister of State must be a member of Parliament. He must help carry the joint responsibility of this House. He must have gone through the electoral hoop. He must be responsible to a political party. He must be a part of the political process, or else he cannot become a Minister. The hon. the Minister asked: “What about the three-months provision?” He knows that the three-months provision is generally accepted by way of convention in South Africa. That is a limited period to allow a new man to bed down, to get accustomed to his portfolio, but so important is it that it should be seen as being temporary that he cannot in fact take a seat in Parliament. In other words, he is told that he has three months in which to learn the ropes while the hon. the Prime Minister finds a vacancy for him. The hon. the Prime Minister can do something in that respect in the Other Place if the Other Place is available. However, it is only temporary, because it is realized that in due course the new Minister has to become an hon. member of this House. Therefore a temporary leniency is afforded to the Government of the day to bring in someone on the clear understanding that it is temporary and that he has to be a member of this House. That period cannot be prolonged. It is so important that he should be a member of this House that he may not even sit in this House during those three months.

In other words, there is a very clear distinction with regard to the new boy who is still on probation and is learning the ropes. He is told that he may sit in this House after three months as a member, but in the intervening period he may not come here. That is because we are jealous of Parliament. We do not want people debating in Parliament, or attacking the Opposition or the Government, if they do not carry the status of being proper members of Parliament. So this was a very clear principle that was laid down in our Constitution. It was more than a principle: It was a convention upon which the South African system of government has been built. Cabinet Ministers must be members of Parliament in the full sense of the word. It is important. This very delicate relationship, this key relationship between the legislature and the executive is perhaps unique in our South African Parliamentary system, but it is extremely important, because it is important that a Cabinet Minister must carry on his shoulders the responsibilities that go with being a member of Parliament. He actually has to be elected here. He has to be responsible to an electorate. Should he come via the Other Place, even there he has to be an integral part of the party system. His party must have agreed to his nomination to that place. In that sense he has gone through the electoral process.

Now we are going to encourage the admission into this House of people who have no responsibility for the electoral process, people—leaving aside the 12 months rule—who have never been through the electoral hoop, people who have never had to face up to this, who do not carry a collective responsibility in one House or the other, but who are going to be able to sit here, talk here, debate here and argue here. We feel that is quite wrong. We believe it is quite wrong that anybody should be a Cabinet Minister for a period of a whole year without being a member of Parliament.

Let us just look at this period once again. The hon. the Minister asked what the difference is between three months and 12 months. The difference is 400%. The hon. the Minister should know that if one looks at the cycle of politics in South Africa three months is a short time. It is the period it takes to call and hold a general election. But a year is a very different thing. In one year we can have two sessions of Parliament, as happened in 1978. In the course of a year we can have a general election. In the course of a year we can have a general election and get rid of a Prime Minister. A year is a long period of time. A year is a period of time which has a very distinct bearing on politics in South Africa, and for a whole year a man who has never been responsible to the electorate is going to have the status of a Cabinet Minister, with all which that implies as far as political influence is concerned.

We do not get rid of our leaders as often as you do.

But you do get rid very easily of your State Presidents.

I should like to come back now to the gentleman who is going to come into this House. We are going to have someone sitting in this House as a Cabinet Minister. It will be argued that he will not be able to vote. It is quite correct: He will not have the right to vote. The hon. the Minister should know, however, that once an election has taken place the right of voting in this House is a relatively unimportant factor. Given the circumstances of South African politics today it is a record of views of a majority and a minority. Granted a change of government at a time of a no-confidence debate it could be of importance. The importance, however, lies in fact in the debate. The headlines in the newspapers, the headlines on TV newscasts, are never the result of a division. The headlines in the newspapers, on the radio and on TV news-casts, and the impact of that on this House, are not the result of a division, but of the nature of a debate. And here we are going to allow to come into this House outsiders, people who, in terms of our own rules, are strangers, people who, in terms of our own rules, are not members of this House. They are going to debate. They are going to attack the hon. Leader of the Opposition and individual hon. members, knowing that they have no responsibility to a constituency. They can say what they like. They are not responsible to a constituency. They cannot be voted out of office when the next election comes along. We believe it is quite wrong. Our Parliamentary system is built on the concept that this House is peopled by individuals who are responsible to an electorate, and as soon as one allows to enter into this House people who have no responsibility to an electorate one attacks the very principle of representative government. That is exactly what is being done by this measure.

The hon. the Minister has tried to pass this off as being a relatively small adjustment, as a three-months’ period of grace which is merely being extended to 12 months. We have tried to indicate that a 12-months’ period is a very significant period in the political history of South Africa. Secondly, the hon. the Minister has said they could come in via the Senate, and it is necessary to have them here. We believe it is wrong to have strangers on the floor of this House. We believe it is going to distort the electoral process, indeed the whole political process in South Africa.

For these reasons and because of the cavalier way in which the Government feels it can gerrymander our Constitution, we in these benches will most certainly vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that in any governmental system there always rests a tremendous onus on those in power at all times to guard against doing things that could purely be regarded as matters of expediency and convenience to them. I think that no matter how one views this particular Bill before the House and no matter whether one approaches it from a practical point of view or from a philosophical point of view, there is only one conclusion one can possibly arrive at in the end and that is that this Bill has been introduced to make things as easy as possible for those who are in power to carry on doing certain things which are out of the ordinary. This is where Parliament as an institution has to be considered. It is of great importance to realize that one has to guard the people against exactly this type of thing happening. That is why constitutions of countries have throughout history been regarded as such sacred instruments. Whether a constitution is protected by entrenched provisions or not, whether it is a written one or an unwritten one, one that has come about as a result of precedence, there is always this tremendous onus upon those in power to withhold themselves from and be very careful not to change it just to make things easier for them. I will be the first to concede that once this Bill has been passed, it will obviously make things easier for those in power, and because this is so, I feel it is my duty to commit our party …

To make it more difficult.

No, it is not to make it more difficult. In a democracy there always exists this great privilege of having an opportunity to have a second thought about things before rushing in and doing the most obvious thing first.

I submit that even since notice has been given of this Bill—and we have discussed this briefly in the Committee Stage—there has been a factual change of circumstances as far as this Parliament and the country are concerned. Although there is no legislation based on any recommendations of the Constitutional Commission before the House now, every single hon. member of this House is fully aware of the extent of those recommendations. We also know that if things run their proper course and this proposed legislation is implemented, South Africa will be left with a single Chamber of Parliament. Whereas we have actually become accustomed to this single Chamber, the Assembly, as being one of which a member can really be regarded as somebody who has in the first place been elected to the Assembly, which, as the Senate, is part of Parliament, and in which people have sat who have been appointed for a limited period of three months, as is the case now, we have always felt that there is still a vast difference between their temporary membership of Parliament and the permanent membership of members of Parliament who have been elected to it.

There are certain other things that have to be considered. I want to raise this matter in all seriousness. I just want to show the hon. the Minister how quickly matters can change. He introduced an amendment and said that he wanted to allay our fears. The amendment is to the effect that a person cannot be reappointed after 12 months, and consequently, whatever we might have against a nominated member is no longer valid, he says. But the hon. the Minister knows what is really going to happen in practice. All that will happen after the 12 month period has expired is that there will be a situation, if the majority recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission are accepted, that that member will still be of the same type of character, because he will be renominated as one of the new nominated members of this House. It will therefore bring about no change to this situation. I believe this is going to create further confusion and is therefore quite unnecessary. No matter how one looks at it, it is purely done for the expediency and the convenience of the Government of the day, and it is a very, very dangerous trend in the constitutional development of the country.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I have not been allowed very much time to reply. Moreover, I think it is fair to request that the Third Reading be taken this afternoon. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that the question of what the Constitutional Commission recommends in respect of nominated members is quite irrelevant at this stage, because legislation in this connection still has to be introduced. However, it is precisely because the Government is anxious that a member of Cabinet should be an elected member that we want this principle—which already exists in the present Constitution—to be further facilitated for a person who does become a Minister and who wishes to obtain a seat. That is the reason.

Then I come to the hon. member for Sea Point. I am sorry, but I have covered the field he discussed here this afternoon ad nauseam. Concerning the question that there was no agreement between the parties or even consultation in respect of this matter between the parties, surely I have replied to this argument repeatedly by giving him examples of minor changes to the Constitution which occur almost every year. This year it has been done two or three times without the Opposition having been consulted about it, and in fact, without their even having objected to the amendments we have introduced. Hon. members on that side of the House admitted during the Committee Stage, through the mouth of the hon. member for Sandton, that the amendment I introduced to limit a person to a period of service of 12 months was an improvement to the existing provision in the Constitution.

He never admitted that.

Now the hon. member for Sea Point is laughing. He should read the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton at the Committee Stage.

Give an example of where this was said.

It is an improvement to the existing Constitution, and therefore it is not an important or far-reaching amendment which we are introducing here. The fact of the matter is, and with that I conclude, that under the existing provisions of the Constitution in this connection, the person can become a member of the Cabinet without being a member of the House of Assembly and can remain in the Cabinet ad infinitum without being elected to this House, only with an interruption of one day every three months. Here we are now limiting him to 12 months, and that is why it is an improvement.