The MINISTER OF FINANCE: I move—

Mr. Speaker, the more senior members of this House will remember that up to the 1950-1 financial year, it was customary to have two Estimates of Additional Expenditure, but since 1951-2 the number has been limited to one. This year, however, circumstances have forced me to submit two Estimates of Additional Expenditure to Parliament.

As hon. members know, the State President is empowered in terms of Section 24 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, to authorize the issue of an amount not exceeding R6,000,000 to defray urgent unforeseen expenditure of a special nature, which is not provided for in an Appropriation Act, or to meet an excess on a Vote of Parliament.

Issues authorized by the State President in terms of the said section as at 31 December 1964 amount to R4,562,650, leaving a balance of only R1,437,350. Additional funds are urgently required under Revenue Vote—Housing, and Loan Vote—Lands and Settlements, but the amount of approximately R1,500,000 still available for issue by special warrant is insufficient to cover excess expenditure on these votes until promulgation of the Additional Appropriation Act, towards the middle of March. Expenditure on these votes can also not be postponed without serious injury to the public interest, and I am left therefore with no choice other than to ask Parliament to appropriate additional funds at this early stage of the Session.

The Estimate of Additional Expenditure now before this House should therefore be regarded as the first instalment and includes services covered by Special Warrants or Services where Special Warrants will have to be issued in due course.

The situation which has arisen this year is perhaps rather exceptional, being due to the need for unexpectedly large sums for such urgent services as assistance to immigrants (Vote 42), assistance to farmers, especially in drought-stricken areas (Loan Vote H) and land purchases in connection with the Orange River Scheme (Loan Vote D). The amount of R6,000,000, which is the maximum which can under present legislation be made available for issue under special warrant is, however, very small in relation to present-day total government expenditure, and I shall consider asking Parliament later in the Session to increase this maximum amount.

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is now asked to appropriate R10,177,540, which is only .75 per cent of the amount approved in the Main and Supplementary Estimates on Revenue and Loan Accounts for this financial year.

I do not intend going into the reasons for the additional amounts requested at this stage. My colleagues, I am sure, are prepared to give full details of the amounts requested on the Votes falling under their respective portfolios and also the reasons for any increase in expenditure.

We note that these are the First Estimates of Additional Expenditure and we also have noted the Minister’s reasons for having come in this way so early in the Session. The hon. Minister tells us that he may come later this year to obtain authority for the State President to issue warrants to a larger amount than he is at present entitled to do, that is to say, R6,000,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, we can debate our approval of that or not when the time arrives. Meanwhile I think that we on this side of the House have no great points of principle to raise at this stage. For the most part these amounts are only additional amounts. There are one or two new items in regard to which we shall ask for information when we are in Committee.

House in Committee:

As a matter of information, I should like to point out in the first place that whereas this amount has already been covered by a State President’s Warrant, apparently the money has not yet been spent, because we are only being asked to vote R50. If the money has already been authorized by a State President’s Warrant and is therefore available to the department for spending, why are we being asked to authorize the expenditure of R50? Why are we not being asked to cover the whole of the State President’s Warrant? Because the hon. Minister of Finance has explained that the reason for him having to come with two Additional Estimates is that the amount already covered by the State President’s Warrant is already depleted. Now if we have to vote R50 here, this amount is still covered by the State President’s Warrant, whereas if we vote the whole amount, which we shall have to do if we vote the R50, then the State President’s Warrant falls away, and is available to be re-issued again for something else. It is not quite clear to me, Sir, why it is framed in this particular way. Furthermore, I am not quite clear—again I am asking for information—why this amount appears at all, why it required a State President’s Warrant, or why it is regarded as additional expenditure. It is not a matter of Loan Funds. If it were a matter of Loan Funds, it would be a specific item on the Capital Account. Usually an amount is asked for a particular capital item. But in this case it is coming out of Revenue. Well, Mr. Chairman, last year we voted an enormous globular sum for Revenue purposes to be put at the disposal of the Minister of Defence. We also know from the figures which have been published to date that the hon. Minister has spent a comparatively small portion of the money which we voted last year. So he has at his disposal a very large sum of money indeed of the globular amount which, without specifying any details, was voted for Defence purposes. I am again asking for information. It is not clear to me why this particular item which presumably is for the re-erection of hangars, that is to say temporary buildings as distinct from permanent brick buildings, and is therefore to be regarded as capital expenditure, could not have been spent out of the Funds already at the disposal of the hon. Minister of Defence, and why it is necessary to go to the State President in the first place and to ask for a Special Warrant for money which apparently has not been spent, and in the second place to come to Parliament at all for a Special Appropriation when we have already voted large sums of money which, as far as I can see, could have been used for this purpose without coming to Parliament again.

The amount of R50 is really a token amount. The position is that hangars which were previously used by the Mealie Control Board for the storage of mealies at various centres are no longer required by the Board for this purpose and the Department of Agricultural Economics has indicated that they can be made available to the Department of Defence at no cost. The Department of Defence is experiencing an acute shortage of storage accommodation at certain of its establishments and desires to obtain these hangars urgently for the storage of stores and equipment which have already been purchased and are now being delivered. The cost of dismantling, transferring and reerecting the hangars on the new sites is estimated at R525,000.

I am afraid the hon. Minister has not answered my questions. I did not raise the questions which the Minister of Public Works has answered. I am very grateful for the information given by him, but it does not deal with the two questions I asked. The one was directed to the Minister of Finance and the other to the Minister of Defence.

The position is, as the hon. Minister of Public Works has remarked, that this is a token amount and the object of it is to draw Parliament’s attention to an item of this extent, which we think Parliament should be made aware of. The State President’s Special Warrant has been obtained in respect of this service, but we anticipate that savings under this head will be sufficient to meet the rest of this amount. So it is not necessary to vote the whole of the R525,000. The balance will be met from savings.

Savings under what head?

Under one or other of the appropriate sub-heads of this Department.

Could the hon. Minister give us some information in regard to this item?

This amount, as hon. members are aware, has to do with the Government’s decision to celebrate the establishment of the Republic five years ago, and the Department which has been assigned the task of carrying the greatest financial responsibility for these celebrations is the Department of the Interior. It goes without saying that other Departments which will co-operate in connection with the celebrations will also do their share. But the greatest responsibility rests with the Department of the Interior. The Department has now started to put the machinery for the celebrations into operation by appointing a secretary in the person of Mr. Coetzee, who was formerly attached to Education, Arts and Science. The expenditure in connection with salaries, subsistence and transport allowances, the cost of services rendered by the Department of Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones and the cost of hiring and maintenance of offices, amount to R5,700 for the current year, but the Department of the Interior contemplates defraying by far the greatest portion of these costs out of savings on other departmental services, with the result that only R50, which is really a token amount, is provided for in these Estimates. Those, briefly, are the reasons for the inclusion of this amount.

The hon. Deputy Minister, if I understood him correctly, said that the expenses till the end of March, as far as his Department is concerned, will be in the vicinity of R5,700.

Correct.

According to the figures here the revised estimate is only R1,050. If the estimate up to the end of March is R5,700, why is it shown in these Estimates as R1,050? I can quite see the hon. Deputy Minister’s explanation that the balance will be got out of savings under other heads of his Department, but it is quite clear here from the wording that it is a revised estimate and the amount is R1,050. If that means anything at all, it means that the total expenditure by his Department on the preparations for this event amounts to R1,050. Now the hon. Deputy Minister tells us that it is not R1,050, but it is R5,700. I must say that these figures are not quite clear and, if the total expenditure is R5,700 (this is a new item), that amount should have been shown here. We find in the next column that “excess to be met from savings on other subheads” amounts to R1,000, but actually he is going to save a lot more, if I understood him correctly. We are only being asked to spend R50, and he is going to save R5,650 on other heads. Good luck to him! But from the point of accuracy and information to this Committee, I think these figures are misleading.

May I point out, Sir, that under Vote No. 9, which we have just passed, the first column says “estimate of total cost”. The hon. the Minister of Finance explained that this was an item that should be brought to the notice of this Committee, an amount of R525,000. But the item we are now dealing with does not follow that form. It simply says “original estimate”. The original estimate here is nil. But there is no column to show the estimate of the total cost. So we do not know what the total cost is going to be, what the estimated total cost is. The form in which this is presented to us differs from the Vote we have just passed. I must say that it is a little confusing. What we would like to know from the hon. Minister is not merely whether there is going to be a saving under certain heads or whether there has been such a saving, but as this is the first time that he comes before us with this item, we should like to know precisely what the cost is going to be and what the proposals are. Whether R50 is obtained by means of a State President’s Warrant or not; at any rate we would like to be able to link up the figures here with the figures that the hon. Deputy Minister has just given us. There is no mention made here of an amount of R5,700. There is nothing even to indicate that such a sum is contemplated. So I would like the hon. Deputy Minister to tell us precisely what is in the mind of the Government in this matter. What are they proposing in regard to these celebrations? What is the final cost likely to be? Whether it is voted by this House in dribs and drabs or in one amount, we should have a full picture of what is contemplated.

Regarding the amount of R5,700, the position is that according to the Department it was originally estimated when the Estimates were drawn up that the expenditure would be R1,050. In the light of later facts it appeared that the amount would be R5,700, as I have already stated. As the Department intends to save this on the various sub-heads, we find a different amount on this Vote.

Regarding the question of what the Government really envisages for this festival, I can say broadly that we envisage to have this festival during May, next year. It will be in different forms. The idea is to have one official festival and that will culminate in Pretoria on 31 May next year when the hon. the Prime Minister will also deliver an address on that occasion. Pretoria was decided upon because so far Pretoria has not had any State festival of this kind, and due to its national importance it was decided that Pretoria would be an appropriate place for such a festival. The Government will contribute towards this festival and the amount will appear in the Estimates coming before the House. But, apart from this, the idea is also to have semi-official festivals in the respective capitals of our provinces, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, etc., and in that respect the idea is that the administrators of the respective provinces will take the initiative to organize the festivities in their respective provinces.

It is also the idea that the non-European section will take part in this festival next year. For this purpose the respective Departments have been contacted to take the initiative and to organize the non-Europeans, be it the Bantu or the Coloureds or the Indians, to take part in this festival next year. The programmes which they have in mind will be submitted to the Director (as he will be called) of the Festival Committee and then they will be considered by the main committee. That is broadly what we have in mind.

The total cost?

That is, of course, problematical. To estimate the total cost is a difficult question. One can only say that, as far as the costs are concerned, we found that the cost of the Union Festival in 1960 amounted to R.1,194,000 and that included the contribution of the Government, which amounted to R391,000; the provincial administrations contributed R184,000, South West Africa R10,000, the Railways R4,000 and municipalities and other donators about R156,000. Ultimately it amounted to R1,194,000. Roughly we have in mind that the coming festival will be about the same amount, but as the Committee will appreciate it is very difficult at this stage before we have seen the programmes of the different committees and the main committee to state any amount with a measure of accuracy.

I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation of these figures which he has been trying to clarify. He stated in his explanation now that the original estimate was R1,050; it was found that they spent R5,700; but they were going to make that up from savings, except for R50. But that is not what is before this Committee at all. That is trifling with this House. Here before us are the printed Estimates, and the Minister says that the revised estimate was R1,050. Has he not looked at his own Estimates? There is no original estimate given, only a revised estimate of R1,050. The hon. Minister says that that was the original estimate, but it does not say so here. Then he says the revised estimate was R5.700. That is also not what the Estimates state. The revised estimate is given here as R1,050 and we are being asked to vote R50. If the hon. Minister wants this House to give him money, he has to lay the exact position before us. Had we not queried this, that R4,650 would apparently have just grown on a tree, Parliament would not have given its sanction to it, or would have given its sanction under previous Votes whose savings would be absorbed without the knowledge of this House. We are entitled to take exception to the hon. Minister trying to hide away R4,650 which is not shown on these Estimates, which he states has been spent, and which, had we not questioned him on it, would not have come to the notice of the House.

I want to go further and want to raise a further point with the hon. Deputy Minister arising from the points he made in regard to the celebrations. He mentioned that the non-Europeans would participate in the celebrations. I want to ask him whether that includes the Transkei, and whether the Transkei capital of Umtata is one of the centres. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh, because we ask whether the Bantu, the citizens of the Transkei, are still citizens of South Africa. The Deputy Minister has just stated that the Bantu are to be invited to participate in celebrating five years of the Republic of South Africa. I am entitled to ask whether the Bantu of the Transkei are included. Will they form part of the celebrations and will the Transkei participate in these celebrations? That is a fair question. It is the implications of this Government’s policy now being brought home to roost in a hundred different ways, and we are entitled to ask the Minister a pertinent question affecting the fundamental approach of this Government to people who, we believe, are citizens of this country but whom the Government does not accept as citizens. We have the right to ask: Are they citizens? Will they join us in the celebrations, or are they not citizens, and will they not participate?

In dealing with the question of the costs of the celebrations, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the Union Festival of 1960, which was designed to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the Union of South Africa. In that case, as he may remember—I am sure that the hon. Minister of Finance will remember, because he had a great deal to do with this matter and as I remember, having been the chairman of the Union Festival Committee of Johannesburg—Johannesburg staged the largest and certainly most impressive celebration of the Union’s Golden Jubilee; thus I want to ask the hon. Minister whether his reference to the semi-official celebrations in what he called the provincial capitals was intended to exclude Johannesburg which, while it is the largest city in South Africa and in the Transvaal, is not the capital of the province.

Johannesburg can celebrate. Why not?

Of course Johannesburg can celebrate. The hon. Minister and I can go out of this Chamber now and we can celebrate something privately, but it would not even be semi-official. The point I am trying to make is that in the case of the Union’s Golden Jubilee, the R390,000 which the State contributed—was divided amongst those authorities, being the festival committees, supported by their local authorities which organized the celebration of the festival. Now is it intended in these semi-official celebrations next year to provide, in the case of a city like Johannesburg, which may want to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Republic, a financial allocation for such celebration—or is it limited to the provincial capitals? I do not want to pursue this point until the hon. Deputy Minister has given us some indication on this very important aspect of the Government’s plans.

I just want to say, in reply to the hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Raw) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) that apart from the central festival which will now be held at Pretoria the organizing of other festivals will be left to the free choice of the relevant areas and the relevant groups who wish to participate in the celebrations. In other words, Johannesburg will be as free as Cape Town or any other place to organize its own festival for this occasion, according to its own taste and according to the best of its judgment, and in that regard it is anticipated that the City Council will certainly play an important role and I think that as sensible people they will probably get in touch with the central committee and ascertain the committee’s views in this connection. With regard to non-official festivals, the relevant Administrators, as far as the Provinces are concerned, will establish committees which will arrange the programmes for the festivals to be held in the Provincial capitals, but it will be left to their own choice as to what form they will take. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, the non-White group, whether they live in the Transkei or here in Langa, will have the same freedom to organize their own festivals. The Government Departments concerned will certainly give them guidance. Such guidance is already being given in various respects, for example by suggesting to the Bantu that they can hold their own tribal festivals on these occasions and arrange their own sports festivals as well as agricultural shows in the rural areas. They can arrange film exhibitions, they can present other traditional shows, they can hold flag-hoisting functions at schools, etc. That is what the Department of Bantu Administration suggests. Similarly, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, it is being suggested to them that they can hold festivals and present tableaux of historic and other events that they can present choir performances, gymnastic performances and flag-hoisting ceremonies. As far as the Indians are concerned, it is being suggested that they can present drama and art festivals and large-scale tableaux according to their own traditions and their own tastes. The local communities therefore, including the various colour groups, whether they are white or black or coloured, are being given an absolutely free choice to draw up their own programmes as they see fit. The important thing is to give everybody an opportunity on that occasion to celebrate the five-year existence of the Republic, and I trust that this will be welcomed by all sides of this House as an opportunity that we ought to grasp.

I listened very carefully to the statement made by the hon. Minister in regard to the proposed festivals in 1966. The indications I have are that all this is being decided by the Government. If we are to have a festival celebrating the fifth anniversary of the Republic, surely it should not be a festival run by the Government, but it is essentially a festival to be run by and for the people of South Africa. Now the hon. Minister has told us in fact that he is making certain contributions in connection with the initial work. He has told us that a director is going to be appointed, he has told us that the Government has decided that the festival would culminate in the city of Pretoria, and no other place, and that administrators will have a certain discretionary right as to what semi-official celebrations shall be conducted on a provincial basis. But we have not heard one single word from the hon. the Minister in regard to the celebrations that will culminate in Pretoria, and whether all sections of the people of South Africa will have a say in the form that these celebrations will take. Is it going to be by a decision of the Government? To hold it every five years was a decision taken by the Prime Minister which he announced, if I recall correctly, on our last Republic Day. Do we only celebrate the calling of a republic into being every five years? Are we not going to have a national public holiday on the prescribed day set down on our Statute Book? Is this going to be a Government celebration or a people’s celebration? Because if it is a people’s celebration then the very least I would have expected to hear form the hon. Minister to-day was that a committee was being formed representative of all interests and all sections of the people of South Africa and that this committee would decide how we will celebrate this day.

Is it going to be before or after the election?

The hon. Minister should indicate, if it is possible for him to do so at this stage, how the interests of the people of the various sections of our community are going to be represented in the committee that will plan these celebrations. The Minister should indicate the degree of liaison that will exist between the National Committee and the provinces, and between that Committee and the local municipalities of our big cities, and with the schools and all the other bodies, in order to get the full co-operation of the people of South Africa, so that the festival may be a true festival and not just a Government festival or a Government-dictated festival. I hope the Minister can give a satisfactory answer to this question.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) can go to bed to-night with his mind perfectly at ease. He need have no fears that the Government is going to arrange the entire celebrations. On the contrary, the Government merely took a decision that the five-year existence of the Republic should be celebrated by way of festivals, and the expenditure to which I have referred necessarily had to be incurred by the Government in order to set the machinery in motion. But it goes without saying that the idea is that a country-wide festival committee will be called into being just as in 1960, a committee representing leading figures over the whole country, so that all language groups will be represented on that committee. The names of the members of that committee will be announced later on. The hon. member need have no fears therefore that it will be limited to a small group of people. It will certainly be one of the most representative committees that we have ever had in this country. As far as the non-official or provincial festivals are concerned, to which the Government will also make a contribution, the administrators have the right to appoint provincial festival committees and, naturally, the administrators will follow the same pattern as the Government by appointing committees which will represent the largest groups, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking. Hon. members need have no fears therefore that these committees will not be representative.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (Administration)”, R281,340,

This is a substantial amount, and I think the hon. the Minister owes this Committee some explanation of how it is constituted.

This organization, SAP and D., was established in 1933 after a number of farmers had obtained shares in certain market agencies. In 1944 SAP and D. registered as a co-operative society under the Co-operative Societies Act and thereafter acted exclusively as market agents. Shortly after they came into being, some of the boards like the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Board stopped marketing their products through them and began to market their own products. Their problem started as far back as 1946. A special effort was made, however, to recruit more members, with the result that large numbers of farmers in the Transvaal and apple farmers in the Langkloof area joined this co-operative society. This recruitment was essential in order to consolidate marketing activities. In the meanwhile the financing of the co-operative society was undertaken by some of the private agents from whom they had taken over these agencies and also by two building societies. With the sale of perishable products on the market, it then became necessary to create additional facilities, such as cold storage facilities, for example. The society’s ordinary financiers were no longer prepared to make contributions for that purpose. In 1945 and 1946 the Land Bank proceeded to finance this co-operative society, particularly with a view to providing those facilities. Shortly afterwards problems began to arise in connection with the management and the personnel of the co-operative society, and there were also other difficulties, with the result that the society found itself in financial trouble from time to time. Steps were then taken to change the management and an official of the Land Bank was appointed as manager to see whether he could not save the cooperative society. The society also found it necessary to provide its members with fertilizers and packing material for the purpose of consigning their products. More funds had to be raised in an attempt to get this cooperative society out of its difficulties. The Land Bank, however, was not prepared on its own initiative to make those funds available and the Government then decided to guarantee a cash credit loan of R200,000 and an ordinary loan of R50,000 with the Land Bank, and also to guarantee the interest on a loan of R70,000 which the Land Bank had granted them on a previous occasion. It appeared in the course of time, however, that the co-operative society could not overcome its difficulties and it was eventually liquidated. The position now is that if all the shareholders of the co-operative society who hold unpaid-up shares were pressed for payment, it would mean that heavy demands would be made upon them, particularly in those areas of the Transvaal where the farmers owe considerable amounts to the co-operative society. When the co-operative society was liquidated, all its assets were sold except a site and a building owned by it in Johannesburg. It now appears that even if this building were sold—at the moment it has not yet been sold; the liquidator is still busy with it—the co-operative society would still be insolvent. In the meantime the interest on the guarantees which the Government gave to the Land Bank is mounting. It will still take some considerable time before the matter is disposed of, and there is no sense, therefore, in letting the interest mount further, and that is why we are now asking for the payment of these amounts.

I should like to have a little more information from the Minister. I should like to know how many shareholders there are in this co-operative society and whether I correctly understood the Minister to say that, although the Government is paying the guaranteed sum to the Land Bank, the shareholders will not be asked to pay for the unpaid-up shares.

I think the number of shareholders at the time of the society’s dissolution was about 3,500. In 1958 there was a membership of 2,397; in 1963, a year before the liquidation, it was 3,590, and in 1962 there was a turnover of R4,800,000. In 1955 the loss was R36,000; in 1956 R1,070, and in 1957 it came down to approximately R6,000; in 1958 it was R20,000; there was a profit of R12,000 in 1959, but the very next year there was a loss again of R11,000; in 1961 it was R40,000, and in 1962 R51,000. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) wants to know whether members were exempted from paying for the unpaid-up portion of the shares. Of course they were not exempted. In terms of the requirements they all have to pay, but one simply cannot collect the money from all of them because there are many people who are no longer there, or who are not in a position to contribute that money. In other words, losses were also suffered in that respect because it was impossible to collect the monies due in respect of the unpaid-up portion of the shares.

Can the Minister not give us a clearer picture? Apparently a certain number of people are responsible for a large portion of this loss. If we approve of this item, those people will be relieved of their liability. There would seem to be more behind this than meets the eye.

I think I set out the position very clearly. The liquidator is obliged, of course, to recover as far as possible all loans made to members and to collect what is owing in respect of unpaid-up shares. But many of these people are small farmers, vegetable farmers, who were not in a position to repay this money in spite of the fact that legal steps were taken against them. In other words, losses were suffered not only on loans but also on unpaid-up shares where people were not in a position to pay, and this increased the losses. Where the money could be collected it was naturally collected, but in the case of such a liquidation there are always people who are not in a position to pay for unpaid-up shares.

I still do not understand the position very clearly. I should like to know from the Minister whether a precedent is being created here. Is this only a case where the Government is giving a guarantee to the Land Bank in connection with co-operative societies? The Minister was not very clear. He cannot give us the number of shareholders who did not pay for their unpaid-up shares. It seems to me that the debt of those persons was also written off and that there were also loans for fertilizers, etc., which have to be written off. The whole thing is very far from clear to me. The difficulty I have is that the Minister gave us the losses over a certain number of years but not one of those losses is a very large one. I think the biggest loss he gave us is one of R60,000. One begins to wonder. The Minister says that when the co-operative society went into liquidation, there were almost 3,900 shareholders. One wonders whether the co-operative society should have been allowed to go under and whether it would not have been worthwhile to support it in some other way. The position is certainly not clear to me. Is this going to create a precedent? What is the future of any other co-operative society which finds itself in the same position? What is the position of shareholders who have not paid for unpaid-up shares?

I want to submit that in this matter the Minister is in a position of trust towards hon. members of this House. Quite obviously, if it was a private concern, a full report would be submitted to the board of directors giving particulars of what efforts had been made and in what cases it was possible to collect the money, and in what cases, for good reason, it may not be intended to proceed against such persons. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has in his office full information in regard to the numbers of persons concerned, whether the money cannot be recovered from them, or whether it is not desired to recover it from them, and whether he will make that information available to the House so that we can debate the matter on its merits. I say it is making a farce of passing Estimates when a Minister comes along with the type of information he has given this House to-day, relating to a very substantial sum of money. He must have full information in his possession, and I want to ask him whether he is prepared to make that information available, not this afternoon, to selected persons from the Opposition, so that we can go into the matter. For myself, I am not satisfied at all with the information the Minister has given us.

I shall try to explain how such a co-operative society works. In the first place it carried on business in the open market where it can suffer losses. Secondly, it granted loans to its members for packing material, fertilizer, etc. Thirdly, it had shareholders whose shares had not been fully paid up. In the course of time it became clear that this co-operative society could not continue. A liquidator was then appointed. He has not yet completed the whole business. I have already said that the building in Johannesburg has not yet been sold. But it is already clear that even if the building were to be sold, and even if the liquidation should succeed in collecting the balance due on unpaid shares and even if he were to collect all outstanding amounts members owe the society, it would still not be enough to meet all the liabilities. In the meantime, the interest on the guarantee which the Government has given the Land Bank is accumulating which only means that the amount with the further interest will be bigger next year than it is at the moment. We are now asking that this amount be paid in the meantime so that the interest does not accumulate. The liquidator is carrying on with his work and once the co-operative society has been liquidated hon. members will be able to get all the information they want as to what portion of the amounts due has not been collected, what portion of the unpaid shares could not be collected and what the total losses were.

May I ask the Minister to tell us what the liabilities and the assets of the co-operative society are?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 48—“Police”, R100,000,

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Justice will explain to us this increase in the item.

There is usually no discussion on these items. Hon. members on both sides of the House will understand that one cannot go into details as far as this item is concerned. All I can say to hon. members—and they ought to be aware of it without my saying it—is that the increase of expenditure is due to increased activities in this sphere. These increased activities became apparent to hon. members during the recess and they will also become clear to hon. members during the course of this year.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 51—“Foreign Affairs”, R1,100,

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be good enough to give the House the reasons for this particular item of expenditure.

*The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: This represents the cost of a gift to King Constantine of Greece at the time of his wedding. The State President was invited to attend the ceremony. It was decided that he would be represented at the function by our Ambassador in Greece. It is customary to give presents on such occasions, and that is what was done.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Account:

On Loan Vote L.—“Transport”, R348,000,

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us a little detail about the expenditure on State airports.

The amount is required for the extension of the apron at Ian Smuts Airport, on which an amount of R60,000 will be spent this year. That is for the purpose of acquiring more accommodation for the planes, especially in view of the introduction of the Boeing Jets for our internal services during the course of the year. The balance of the amount is required for the extension of the secondary runway at Kimberley. Originally it was decided to build a runway of the length of about 6,300 feet, but again in view of the introduction of the Boeing Jets on the internal services it is necessary to extend that runway to 8,000 feet. The amount is required for that.

In regard to the second item, Katima Mulilo is in the Caprivi Zipfel. It is a place which is practically inaccessible, particularly during the rainy season, and, as hon. members know, it is administered by the Republic. The only road leading to it is a road from the Victoria Falls through the reserve as far as Kasani. It is a very bad sandy road. From Kasani you have to travel about 40 miles south as far as Nqoma where you have to use a ferry. Then you have another stretch of sandy road of about 45 miles as far as Katima Molilo which is the administrative seat of the Caprivi. There is another road which goes from Livingstone as far as Kasangulu and you then cross the Zambezi by ferry. You again pass Kasani up to Nqoma, with the ferry over the Chobi and then by road to Katima Molilo. If it rains the road from Katima to the ferry is practically unpassable. The entire road is more or less under water. The result is that at that time the only way of reaching Katima Molilo is by air. It is also necessary to build an alternate airport for direct flights from Luanda to Johannesburg, and particularly from Windhoek to Salisbury. The airport which will be built there will also serve this purpose.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote Q.—“Bantu Education”, R50,

The particular item I wish to refer to in this new service is the excess to be met from savings, R34,150. I cannot imagine how, on Revenue Account or on Loan Account, it is possible to save anything on Bantu education. We know that when it comes to the Revenue Account, and the Loan Account is in a similar position—teachers are underpaid and they cannot get proper equipment in the schools because there is a straitjacket system of financing. When we come to Loan Account money must have been saved on buildings, I presume. The Minister may perhaps explain that, but the present situation is this, that the Bantu, the poorest section of our community, is often called upon to provide funds for his own schools. If we say that we are saving money on that account it means that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul; we are robbing the poorer section of the community. Some other service is being sacrificed in order to provide this new school. I should like the Minister to explain that to us.

The hon. member is totally wrong to raise the question of the contributions the Bantu themselves make to provide schools under this item because it is only in the case of community schools that the Bantu themselves contribute. Then they contribute half the costs on a rand-for-rand system. In those cases the amounts for Bantu education appear in the Estimates of expenditure and not in the Loan Estimates which deal only with schools erected solely by the Department of Bantu Education. Those are State Bantu schools and schools which are erected to provide alternative facilities where locations, Bantu residential areas, are moved away from urban areas, as happened in this particular case. This expenditure in the Loan Estimates has nothing whatsoever to do with the contributions made by the Bantu. Any savings are usually due to the fact that in any building programme envisaged by any Department difficulties are usually experienced in that they cannot get occupation of the land timeously in order to carry out the building programme in which case it has of necessity to be delayed as happened on a few occasions last year. That being the position provision is originally made in the hope that in all cases we shall get occupation timeously in order to erect the school, but if it cannot be obtained timeously there is money which cannot be spent. Savings are effected in that way. The position is not at all, as the hon. member has tried to suggest, that savings have been effected because of stinginess or because of a policy of cutting down. There have been savings because of technical problems. I trust the hon. member will understand that in this case it was a matter of providing a particular service as soon as possible. A school for Bantu children had to be built at Benoni. The Bantu had to be moved from one residential area to another. Matters suddenly righted themselves much quicker than expected and it was possible to move the Bantu much sooner than originally planned and for that reason we had to tackle the erection of the schools much sooner and it was possible to do so because savings had been effected elsewhere where we could not get occupation timeously to start building schools.

This money will have to be repaid out of the Bantu Education Account, and the point I wish to make is this: If it has to be paid again next year, we are getting an extra service; we are loading the Bantu Education Account and it cannot afford to be loaded. I should think the obvious thing would have been to have carried forward any money that has not been spent. We are quite accustomed to the Bantu Education Department not spending the money that has been voted, but in this case I think the money should have been carried forward. We cannot afford, in financing Bantu Education, to say, as we are doing here, that we are using up every bit of money we have if it cannot be actually used for the purpose for which it was voted.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

First Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts, reported without amendment.

Estimates adopted.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates adopted by the House.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to extend for a further two years until 31 March 1967 the present temporary subsidy arrangements with the provinces.

As hon. members are aware, the temporary basis was introduced originally in terms of Act 38 of 1957 and came into operation during the financial year 1957-8. These temporary arrangements were to remain in force while a commission investigated the whole question of financial arrangements between the Central Government and the provinces. The relevant commission duly completed its investigation and submitted its report. That report is at present receiving the necessary attention and consideration.

Hon. members will recall that when the existing temporary arrangements were extended for a further two years in 1963, an undertaking was given that a serious effort would be made to introduce permanent legislation before the expiration of the extended period. The report, however, was received later than we anticipated, and because of the implications and the scope of this whole matter, it is clear that it will still take some considerable time to study and to consider the report. It has now become clear that it will not be possible to dispose of this matter in the course of the present financial year and provision is now being made in the Bill, with a view to problems which an election next year may possibly bring about, for an extension of the present arrangements for a further two years. That will allow sufficient time. I hope, for the commission’s report to be considered by the various Departments concerned, for the formulation of the Government’s attitude in this connection, for discussions with the provincial authorities and for the drafting of the necessary legislation. The various provinces have been informed of the contents of this Bill and I personally also enlightened the four administrators in this regard the week before last and they indicated their acceptance of the Bill.

This is really a request by the hon. the Minister for an extension of the stop-gap legislation in regard to the financial relations between the provinces and the Central Government. I suppose we have to accept the Minister’s apology and excuses for not having been able to finalize this question. as he had hoped to do the last time we dealt with this legislation. The Bill is really a replica of the existing Act and, as far as we are concerned, we have no comment to make on the Bill itself except to endorse the hon. the Minister’s hope that this will be the last time that we will have to pass legislation in this respect.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, on 22 January 1965 I tabled the Report of the Railways and Harbour Board in which they recommended the construction of two new railway lines, namely. a guaranteed single line from Kensington to a terminal point in the Montague Gardens area in the vicinity of Milnerton to serve the factory of Fisons (Pty.), Ltd., and a single avoiding line from Chiselhurst to the East London harbour. The report contains all the details in connection with these railway lines and the reasons for their construction and I trust hon. members are au fait with its contents.

Kensington—Montague Gardens: As far as the guaranteed line to Kensington is concerned, the Railways received a request from Fisons in July 1964 for railway facilities to a terminal point in the Montague Gardens area near Milnerton to serve the fertilizer factory of the company. The company indicated that it was expected that the factory would reach the production stage towards the end of September 1966 and asked that the railway line be completed by that time.

The costs of construction of this line over a distance of approximately five miles will be close on to R800,000; the line will be of main line standard.

The route the line will follow is as indicated in the report and provision has been made for two road bridges where the line will cross two main roads. The terminal station will be half a mile south of the site on which Fison’s will erect their proposed factory; the factory will be served by a private side-line. The proposed site of the terminal station has been planned with a view to facilitating its future extension to the proposed fishing harbour at Rietvlei—a scheme which was recently approved by the Government. If necessary it will also be possible to serve other industries which may be established in that area, including the Caltex refinery which has already been established there, by rail from that station.

According to data furnished by Fison’s it is expected that the amount of outgoing traffic that will be conveyed over the proposed line during the period 1967 to 1970 will be approximately 223,000 ton per month and, based on the estimated traffic for 1968, it is calculated that the line will operate at an estimated loss of R42,000.

As hon. members know it is an expensive undertaking in present day circumstances to build a railway line, as is evident from the fact that the one to the Montague Gardens area will cost no less than R164,000 per mile. The policy of the Railway Administration to-day is to recommend a new railway line which is not required for departmental purposes, only in those cases where the line is guaranteed by the interested parties against any operating losses, including interest on capital and depreciation. The company is prepared to give such an undertaking and the customary agreement has been entered into. A cony of the agreement forms a schedule to the Bill.

Chiselhurst-East London Harbour Avoiding Line: The traffic which is handled in the East London area has more than doubled during the past 14 years and a new peak will be reached when the grain elevator, which is at the moment in the course of construction at West Bank, comes into operation early in 1966. At present the East London harbour can only be reached by rail through the station complex and all traffic to and from East London has to traverse a definite set of points and this gives rise to considerable delay every day. The expected increase in traffic will subject this set of points to ever increasing pressure with the result that it will be impossible to avoid further train and shunting operation delays.

The resettlement of non-Whites at Mdantsane (on the other side of Cambridge) will place an additional burden on the terminal facilities at the East London station. A start has already been made with this scheme which may in future possibly result in an extension of the existing suburban passenger services.

In view of the operating problems experienced at East London the intention is to construct a single avoiding line between Chiselhurst and the harbour to ease the position on the Cambridge-East London line. The proposed line will be of main line standard and will be built over a distance of 3.6 miles at an estimated cost of R1,100,000 or R292,000 per mile. There are various factors which make this line considerably more expensive than the Kensington line. The difference in the topography of the two areas is mainly responsible for the higher costs of earth works and bridges, amongst others, in the case of the Chiselhurst line.

The line will pass the existing main shunting yard and side lines at the East London station and will have its terminal point on the western side of the East bank thus providing a direct connection between Cambridge and the harbour.

Savings are expected as soon as the avoiding line has been constructed in that shunting time will be reduced, the running times will increase and banking locomotives will be eliminated.

With the exception of the non-White area of the township of Duncanville—the inhabitants are being resettled ait Mdantsane—the proposed line will not run through any built-up area.

It is estimated that it will take two years to construct the line but the intention is to expedite the construction in order to have the avoiding line ready as soon as possible after the completion of the grain elevator in 1966.

These new constructions which are being proposed by the hon. the Minister are obviously necessary in the interests of the development of certain areas and of our country in general. The hon. the Minister stated his case, very clearly and we are grateful to him for having done so; he fully supported it and the Opposition therefore will give him its full support in this new undertaking. There are some members on this side of the House, however, who represent the areas concerned and who would like to offer some comments, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will be interested to hear what they have to say.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome this Bill, particularly the section which deals with the railway line at East London. I do so for several reasons, which I mentioned some few years ago in this House at the time when the hon. the Minister first applied for authority for the construction of the large grain elevator at East London, which is the largest seaport terminal grain elevator in South Africa. I pointed out at the time that when that grain elevator was completed it would throw a tremendous extra strain upon the shipping; that it would enable the harbour to cope with many more grain ships than it was able to do at the time and that that would throw a very much greater load upon the railways in the vicinity of East London, which at the present time are experiencing some difficulty in coping with the loads which are placed on East London owing firstly to the steep gradient up from the harbour to the present East London railway yards and the congestion brought about at those yards. The construction of this line will avoid the railway shunting yards, which will then enable the Railway Department to deal more expeditiously with the traffic which is obviously needed and will be needed when the grain elevator is completed. We are anticipating a very heavy maize crop in South Africa and I have some fears that if this railway line is not completed very quickly there will be serious congestion in that area. I therefore want to appeal also for the expeditious construction of this line in view of the prospect of much heavier traffic on this line in the near future. I want to say at the same time that this line will not only benefit East London shippers and East London commerce and industry but it will be of special benefit to the hinterland behind East London. I am thinking particularly of the areas running up to Queenstown and right on to Bloemfontein and the great maize areas of that region. Congestion near the East London port could create serious difficulties for the people inland who are dealing through the East London port. Therefore I want to stress again the urgent necessity for this line to be completed with the utmost expedition.

I wish to support the view expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in supporting the Bill before the House, particularly in regard to the second of the two lines mentioned, that is to say the local line, the necessity for which, as the hon. the Minister has already explained, has been brought about by the new fishing harbour at Rietvlei and also the development of the new refinery. I know I speak for all interests concerned when I say that we welcome tangible proof that the long period of uncertainty, particularly with regard to the harbour, will have ended now we have come to the concrete construction of the line.

I also want to say this, with regard to that particular line that even at the very high cost which one has to face today with the construction of this type of line, as the hon. the Minister has explained, we welcome this relatively small beginning of what will eventually have to be quite a substantial railway development to serve that particular area.

The line itself provides for a service to two particular industries, which, as far as that particular part of the Cape is concerned, must lead to very extensive further developments, bearing in mind the nature of the industrial activities which are to be developed there. I refer to the fishing harbour and the refinery. These two major industries will eventually both have a very large growth of satellite industries around them. The fishing harbour itself, without any question, will eventually develop far beyond the extent contemplated to-day and this has to be provided for in the over-all scheme of development. The same applies to the refinery. One trusts that in the planning of this line to-day, in what one might almost describe as the modest commencement of this work, we are seeing what in future will develop into a major railway development in this area which is destined to play a very important part in the industrial development of the Cape as a whole. We welcome the tangible sign that this work will now be commenced.

I should also like to refer just briefly to this line which will branch off from Kensington. There is one particular point that I should like to raise. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out that this line will be of such a nature that it will be possible to extend it to the fishing harbour and that it will also serve other industries, such as Caltex, which are situated in the immediate vicinity, apart from Fisons. But the fact of the matter is that this is a brand-new development and that we are dealing here with an area situated between the sea and Tygerberg, an area which has lain undeveloped for years but which has made particularly rapid strides in the past few years, particularly in the sphere of housing. It has also become a residential area. We have the Bosman Dam housing scheme there, for example, which falls under the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and I believe that great progress is being made in that sphere.

Well, I cannot help wondering whether there has been consultation between the hon. the Minister of Transport on the one hand and the hon. the Minister of Community Development on the other with regard to the question of passenger transport. Just a little further on we have the Table View Township where there will also be a large number of residents. Sir, the report which I read does not really refer to passenger services. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister in the first place whether there was any liaison with the hon. the Minister of Housing as far as Bosman Dam is concerned with a view to providing passenger facilities for the people in this new area, and in the second place I should like to know this: If there has been such liaison what is going to be the financial position if it should appear that passengers make use of this line on a large scale, thus reducing the losses on that line? Will the benefit of this then accrue to the firm of fisons?

Whenever the Minister of Transport comes forward with a construction programme, he is always thanked for his efforts, but naturally we know that he will not construct a line unless it is guaranteed to pay its way. We in the Western Cape welcome this new line, this new opening to the new industrial areas in the Cape. We have had to suffer quite a lot in the Western Cape and when we see efforts made by the Government to assist us we naturally welcome them.

Sir, this particular area has a considerable potential. As has already been said it adjoins the Rietvlei fishing harbour, which will be one of the main fishing harbours in the whole of this country. Furthermore, there is a refinery nearby. This line, although it is a branch line constructed on main line standards, was designed with that fact in view, but I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows that some years ago there was talk of giving Cape Town a direct link with the north-western Cape. At the present moment we do not have that direct link. The railway line goes up to Kraaifontein and then branches off and eventually down to Malmesbury. There is a terrific potential in the whole area up to Malmesbury and further north, particularly with the new big Saldanha Bay harbour works, and this line, if developed further north, could open up tremendous development in that whole area. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has pointed out the passenger potential of residents in this developing area. Further on you have the Coloured township of Mamre and just outside Malmesbury you have another very big township. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in building bridges and providing other facilities provision cannot be made for the possible construction of a double line with a view to eventually pushing this line on to Malmesbury and further north. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is ton miles that the producer pays for and wherever we can bring down the mileage to the North West Cape, I think it is a matter that should receive serious consideration. I think it will be well worth while to bring about a saving on that roundabout link that we have at the present moment. Furthermore, it will bring Malmesbury and other outlying areas to within easy reach by rail to Cape Town.

Sir, according to this plan here it is the intention of the Railways to build a bridge over the national road, and I am interested to know why they want to do this in view of the nature of the soil. The situation here is very different from that in East London. The nature of the soil is such that I would imagine it would be cheaper to sink this line under the national road and under the other roads. If the Railways are going to follow the policy of constructing the line over roads it is going to be expensive in the future when other roads are constructed in the area. I think it might be very much cheaper to sink this line under the road. They could save quite a bit of money by doing so. As I have said, I hope the line will be constructed in such a way that they can at least lay a double line at a later stage without having to reconstruct the bridges.

Then, Sir, when you examine this particular plan you find that the line branches off at Kensington to a Defence Department line. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to charge Fison’s the full rate from Kensington or only from the turn-off from the Defence line. There is a line there at the present moment, and all they are doing is to link up this section. The Defence Department must have that particular line and I think it would be unfair to charge Fisons for that particular section on to Montague Gardens.

We on this side of the House welcome the construction of these two railway lines and we welcome any new extensions, improvements to existing extensions, and extensions, as in the case of Fisons, for the improvement of existing facilities. Sir, the hon. the Minister set out his policy when he proposed the construction of these railway lines and, inter alia, he said this—

He made it clear that that was not the position in the case of departmental railway lines. The hon. the Minister stated that it was the policy of the Department to construct new lines only if the losses were guaranteed by the users. Mr. Speaker, that policy statement is a disturbing one in a young country such as South Africa, where we regard the railways as the life artery to ensure the economic growth of every part of our country. What we expect is at least to have railway lines in those areas which have to be built up economically. It is a disturbing fact that the hon. the Minister should have made this statement of policy in introducing this Bill; it is disturbing particularly to that part of the country from which I come, where there are great possibilities for the opening of new coal mines. There is a great demand for new railway lines to those coal mines. It raises all sorts of difficulties if the users have to furnish a guarantee that they will meet all losses. The difficulty which faces those coal mines at the moment, as the Minister himself stated, is that they are delivering less coal than they have been able to deliver in past years. The hon. the Minister stated in the course of the no-confidence debate that the reason for that was the shortage of labour. The reason, however, is that they are unable to get trucks.

Order! The hon. member is altogether off the rails now.

I am just making it clear, Sir, why it will be difficult for those users to meet the losses, and why the statement of policy made here this afternoon by the Minister will make it quite impossible in the future for new railway lines to be constructed. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us a little clarity on this matter.

My reply to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is, as I stated in my opening remarks, that the estimate of the time of construction of that dividing line from Chiselhurst to Cambridge is two years, but that the Department will endeavour to expedite the construction so that it can be completed at the same time as the new grain elevator comes into operation.

*The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) referred to passenger services. If the need arises, then naturally passenger services will be instituted on that line, particularly having regard to the new suburban expansion which is taking place in that area. Primarily, however, this line is being built to serve Fisons. As the hon. member will notice in the Bill, all losses which are suffered on this line are being guaranteed by Fisons. The hon. member wants to know whether the profits on passenger services will then be used to compensate Fisons. Unfortunately I have to tell him that passenger services are never run at a profit.

Not even non-White services?

No, not even there, because the Government’s subsidizes these services. No suburban service is operated at a profit. If the hon. member looks at the Schumann Commission’s report he will see that the total losses on passenger services amount to R40,000,000 to R50,000,000.

Will the income derived from passenger services be taken into account in working out the amount owing to Fisons?

Yes, all services will be taken into account, as the hon. member will see from the contract which has been entered into. It is the schedule to the Bill.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) wanted to know whether there was a possibility of extending the line so that there could be a direct route to the north-western Cape. He also asked that provision should be made for a double line so that it would be able to cope with all the traffic once it is extended to Malmesbury. I think the hon. member is very optimistic. As a matter of fact I think there are to-day only about eight to ten trains per day operating from Malmesbury to the north. I do not think there will be any upsurge of traffic or any extensive development in that area in our lifetime. But if the need does arise in future, I can assure the hon. member that, if practically possible, the line will be extended.

The hon. gentleman also stated that it might be cheaper to sink the railway line instead of building road bridges. As the hon. member probably knows, a certain grade must be maintained. The grade to which the line will be built will be 1 to 100. If the line has to be sunk, it will mean that it will have to run through a cutting from Kensington to its terminal point, and that will probably, not double, but increase the cost ten-fold. The grade has to be maintained. In other words, you cannot have a dip like a subway.

The soil is sandy.

Yes, but apart from that. So I do not think that is practicable. The most practical way, of course, is to build bridges across the line.

*The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is very perturbed about a statement of policy that I allegedly made. But, Sir, that is nothing new. I have stated repeatedly on previous occasions that the only railway lines which are going to be built are lines in the first instance which are guaranteed; secondly, lines which are required for departmental purposes and, thirdly, lines which can be justified on economic grounds, in other words, where it can be proved that the income from the new line to be built will be sufficient to cover the expenditure—not to make a profit. In that event I am quite prepared to have the line constructed. Where, however, the income is going to be less than the expenditure and there is no potential development in the area, or where there is no possibility that after a specified period the income derived from the line, as a result of development which takes place in the area, will at least balance the expenditure, the line will not be constructed. I want that to be perfectly clear. A line will be constructed, in the first place, where the income will balance the expenditure; secondly, where the potential development in the area is such that the line will eventually pay although it will operate at a loss in the initial stages.

In connection with new development that takes place the hon. member probably knows that it is the intention to construct a line from Vryheid to a point along the north coast, probably at Empangeni. That line will be constructed for departmental purposes, in other words, to relieve the pressure on the Natal main line, but also in order to promote the development of the particular area through which the line will run. It is possible that other rich coalfields may still be discovered in that area. All those factors are taken into account before deciding whether a new line should be constructed or not.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which is supported by all the provinces, contains six different proposals for the extension of the powers of the provinces.

In Clause 1 it is recommended that for so long as provincial councils are empowered to make ordinances in connection with roads, outspans, ponts and bridges, except bridges connecting two provinces, authority be granted to the executive committees of the provinces to build and maintain in any other province, out of funds made available by provincial councils for the purpose and with the approval of the executive committee of that other province, such roads, outspans, ponts and bridges as the first mentioned executive committee may consider desirable in the public interest.

This proposal is made as a result of representations by the farming community in the areas of Piet Retief and Paul Pietersburg, for a better and more direct route from their area to Wakkerstroom. After receipt of these representations an inspection was undertaken locally by the Provincial Administration of Transvaal and it was found that as a result of the mountainous nature of the land, the road system in that area left much to be desired and required immediate improvement. At present this farming community must travel a long and dangerous detour to reach Wakkerstroom. As a result of the mountainous nature of the land road building in this area provides many problems and if the most convenient road must be built over the most suitable terrain, such a road must of necessity partially run through the province of Natal. The only other routes which can be followed and which lie entirely within the borders of Transvaal will be unrealistic as well as uneconomical.

On representations by Transvaal that in the circumstances Natal must give favourable consideration to the construction and maintenance of that portion of the proposed road that will traverse Natal, especially as more than half of the persons who petitioned for the road live in Natal, Natal adopted the attitude that the road in question would unfortunately be of no value to that province as far as the construction and maintenance thereof were concerned. Natal, however, intimated that they had no objection to Transvaal undertaking the construction and maintenance of the road in their territory, if Transvaal should succeed in obtaining the necessary legislative authority from Parliament to expend funds on services outside its boundaries. Natal has undertaken to proclaim that section of the road which is to be built in their territory. The proposed amendment will enable Transvaal to provide the farming community in question with a shorter and safer road to Wakkerstroom.

I now come to Clause 2. The proposal contained in Clause 2 is primarily intended to dispel doubt which arose. In terms of the existing statutory provisions the provinces are empowered to control, inter alia, museums, art galleries, herbaria, botanic gardens and similar institutions. An oceanarium—hon. members will know about the famous Haig who amuses visitors there—and a snake park are being maintained in close conjunction with and as integral divisions of the Port Elizabeth Museum under the control of the same board of curators. A measure of doubt has arisen as to whether the existing power, as interpreted up to the present, allows for zoological gardens, acquariums, oceanariums and snake parks to be considered as similar institutions intended by the Act. The proposal under discussion is intended to remove all possible doubt in order to prevent chaos where up to recently order and certainty have prevailed.

I now come to Clause 3. In Clause 3 the provinces are empowered to contribute towards the erection of the Louis Trichardt Trek Monument as Lourenço Marques if they desire to do so. In terms of the existing legal provisions the provinces are not competent to expend funds outside their borders without the consent of Parliament which is granted by means of legislation. Transvaal who is historically very closely connected with the Louis Trichardt Trek has requested that they be empowered to contribute the marble statue of the ox-waggon and ten oxen which will decorate the garden of remembrance. The other provinces have no objection to this clause which has been so formulated that any one of the other provinces will be able to make a contribution if they so desire.

In Clause 4 an amendment to the Restrictions in Townships Act, 1946, is recommended with the primary purpose of assisting the Cape Province with the problems they are experiencing with their town planning schemes. In terms of the existing provisions of the Act the Administrator, with the approval of the State President, can promulgate a proclamation whereby restrictive conditions which are registered against the title deeds of land in a town are altered, suspended or removed either permanently or for a specific period of time; either conditional or subject to any condition stated in the proclamation to enable the owner to use it for a purpose for which he may use it under any law in operation in respect of town planning in respect of the town in which the land lies.

The position in the Cape Province is, that whilst there are a number of cities and towns with town planning schemes, these schemes have not as yet been formally and finally approved although they are fully binding upon the local authorities and owners of land within the area of such schemes. The reasons why the schemes have not as yet been finally approved are stated by the Cape Province to be the following, firstly, a shortage of trained town planners to investigate and report on the schemes; secondly, the rapid development which necessitates practically a running revision of the schemes; and, thirdly, the fast evolution of town planning ideas and the fact that some of the schemes are so idealistic that local authorities will be crippled financially by claims for compensation in respect of land proposed to be acquired to provide the amenities envisaged. The lack of formal approval of schemes has caused no serious difficulty to the owners of the land as the owners have a right to appeal to the Administrator in all cases. Moreover, owners enjoy protection in respect of everything controlled under the draft schemes including any change or departure as all the changes and departures are subject to the consent of the Administrator.

That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the main reason for the introduction of this clause. As these so-called draft schemes have not been finally proclaimed, the law advisers have expressed the opinion that for purposes of the Removal of Restrictions in Townships Act, 1946, these schemes cannot be considered as schemes which are in operation in respect of the town concerned with the result that the powers under this Act cannot be exercised to alter obsolete and restrictive conditions on land within the area of such schemes a step which is often necessary to provide for essential amenities such as clinics, old-age homes, private hospitals and even commercial and industrial enterprises. In other words, in terms of the law the Administrator cannot insist on a condition of title being amended or deleted in regard to an erf in a town in respect of which a town planning scheme has been submitted before he has finally approved of that scheme. That is the crux of the whole matter. The Administrator must first have approved of the scheme before he, as Administrator, can agree to any amendment in connection with it. It is therefore recommended that the Act be so amended that these schemes which are binding on local authorities and owners of land within the area of those schemes may also be treated as final schemes for the purposes of the Act. As I have already said, they have not been approved by the Administrator, but they are nevertheless binding on the local authorities and on the owners of erven. The amendment will provide considerable relief to organizations and owners of land in the Cape Province who at the moment are restricted by obsolete conditions from using it for purposes acceptable to local authorities and the Administrator in terms of modern conceptions of community development.

I now come to Clause 5.

In Clause 5 it is recommended that the Powers and Privileges of Provincial Councils Act, 1948, be amended to extend to members and officials of the provincial councils the same protection in connection with compulsory appearance as witnesses or defendants in civil proceedings as that enjoyed by members of the Senate and the House of Assembly. Members of provincial councils and the officials concerned will not enjoy the protection in respect of the place which is the seat of their respective councils. The purpose is primarily to prevent that a council member be denied the right to represent his voters whereby their interests may be adversely affected, and secondly, that the absence of an official may cause embarrassment to the council and provincial administration. Although subordinate to Parliament, a provincial council is nevertheless a legislative body which has to contend with the same problems as Parliament in this respect.

The proposed provision in Clause 6 is calculated to enable local authorities to delegate such powers, functions or duties which have been entrusted to them by virtue of an act of Parliament, and which cannot be delegated as they have already been delegated by Parliament to the local authorities and cannot legally be further delegated by a delegate to a committee or an official of the local authority, to obtain better and more effective discharge or execution thereof. Such a delegation will only be made with the agreement of the executive committee and the approval of the Minister to whom the administration of the act concerned has been assigned. Perhaps I could explain it better by putting it this way, Mr. Speaker. Legislation passed by this Parliament in respect of matters concerning Bantu or housing or health, often provides that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will have the right to delegate one or other function to a local authority. The problem to-day is this, that as the law stands at the moment, such delegated powers can only be exercised by that local authority. What happens in practice is this: The Minister delegates powers to the local authority. The local authority cannot do the work of the Department of Bantu Administration, for example, or that of the Departments of Health or Housing. In other words, the work is done by the committee of Housing or whatever department it is. In many cases the work is done by the senior officials of the committee concerned. The law advisers have now expressed the opinion that the state of affairs as it has developed in practice is legally wrong. They are of opinion that it is legally wrong for a local authority, to which the Minister has delegated his powers, to delegate those powers either to a committee or to an official. The difficulty is this that if the position is not rectified the system of local authority may collapse completely. The United Municipal Executive of the country has made serious representations that something be done in this connection. The decisions that will be taken will be in respect of more routine and less important functions and duties and the council of the local authority, the executive committee and the Minister concerned are empowered to and will naturally ensure that such delegation is not to the detriment of the community. The fact that it has to be referred to the Minister concerned ensures that if a local authority should delegate the powers, which have been delegated to it, to a committee or to an official, it would have the approval of the Minister under whom that Act operates. Furthermore, the amendment does not bring about any change in the existing procedure followed by local authorities, i.e. to act in certain cases by means of committees and officials but is designed to remove all possibility of illegal action and thereby prevent the collapse of the system of local management which has been systematically built on experience through the years.

This is the object of this measure, Sir, and I accordingly move.

I am not going to challenge the Bill clause by clause as the hon. the Deputy Minister has done, but I would like to make one or two comments as I go along. When dealing with Clause 1 the Deputy Minister gave a reason for it. He said there were certain roads the Transvaal provinces wished to build in order to get a more direct route to one of their towns and areas in their province and which had to traverse the province of Natal. I do not want to go into the history of Natal but had they come along to me and offered me a reasonable fee I would have shown them how we overcame that difficulty in Natal many years ago by sundry means which passed the provincial auditor, and the Auditor-General in due course, and our money was spent in another province.

By making the Transvaal pay for it?

Well, you know, the hon. the Deputy Minister is now putting an idea in my mind. He must not forget that I am closely associated with the administration in Natal.

There is one point I should like to raise. I say I think it is a good provision. I think it will serve a good purpose to have the position clarified and set out in an Act of this Parliament. But I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would not consider the inclusion of schools in this clause. I am not pressing for it; I am not going to move an amendment or anything of that sort. You see, Sir, there are schools in other provinces run by a particular province. I even think here in the Cape Province there is a school which is paid for by the Transvaal. There is a school in Natal which is paid for by the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Everybody is agreeable to this; it has gone on for some years; no exception is taken to it and everybody is quite happy. But I wonder whether, for the sake of complete certainty on the subject, it would not be better if the hon. the Deputy Minister went into that and, at the appropriate time, consider including schools. You see, Sir, there is a safeguard because unless both provinces agree in regard to a matter of this kind it does not qualify for the authority in terms of this clause. That also means that the State President has to agree because all Ordinances must be signed by him. So you will get the State, as represented by the State President, and the provinces agreeing. So there will be ample security as far as that is concerned. There can be no irresponsible approach to the matter.

Clause 2 is quite straightforward; so is Clause 3. When we come to Clause 4 the position is rather different. I listened carefully to what the Deputy Minister had to say. The first observation I should like to make is in regard to the English version of this clause, where there is obviously a misprint. It says “the administration is satisfied …” It must obviously read “the administrator …”. In the Afrikaans version it says “die administrateur …”. I think the Afrikaans is correct and it must obviously be the “administrator”, otherwise it makes no sense. Secondly, I want to say that I think the grammar in this clause is deplorable. I refer to the English version. I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he get his people to have another look at this and make it quite clear what it is intended to convey. We have had legislation dealing with the power of the administrator to set aside restrictive conditions in titles before to-day. And I think it was not so long ago that we had an amending Bill before us. At that time I pleaded for the greatest care and circumspection to be exercised by the administrators in using the powers to alter and set aside restrictive clauses in title deeds whenever such applications may come before them. I know that it does not come before the administrator as a person, and I know the machinery that is set up in the provinces to carry out preliminary examinations and to make reports so that when the matter finally reaches the executive committee, that is the administrator sitting with the executive committee. that has been a very full investigation. and the reports are available, and so on. and so on. but this question of the setting aside of restrictive clauses in regard to title deeds is a very important matter indeed, as you will well know, and I think that we have always got to be very careful indeed when a measure such as this comes before us. and we have got to make our meaning clear, we must not leave it in doubt, it must not be left for a Judge to come along and say: “Well, the grammar of this clause is very bad, I think what the Legislature meant was so and so, and on the assumption that that is what the Legislature meant, I am going to give a decision.” It only means more trouble, more uncertainty, and it means coming back to Parliament again for certain clarifications. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, we do want to have a further look at this clause. We are perfectly well aware of the necessity of being able to clear up some of the difficulties in respect of particular individual plots in town-planning schemes, and it does seem that a system whereby the administrator, acting on the advice and with the consent of the executive committee in each province has got the power to set aside restrictive clauses or conditions—it may not be a restriction registered in title, it may be a condition that has been laid down by an appropriate authority, but the administrator should have the power to set aside such restrictive clauses in the interests of a town-planning scheme. We recognize that, but we do realize that there are two strong points of view entirely opposed to one another and that a good case can be made out for the least often interference with restrictive clauses which have been registered against a title, in the same way as it can be argued, as I do for the moment, that we realize that it is a very good thing to have the power and authority placed in the hands of some identifiable administrator, who can be approached through the proper channels for consideration of any difficulty that may arise in regard to the carrying out of town-planning schemes.

I would also say to the hon. Deputy Minister that it seemed to us on this side of the House quite clear that in the case that he gave he was dealing probably with the provincial legislation as it applies in the Cape, and it is not necessarily so in the other provinces. That is the point we want to have a look at.

It mainly affects the Cape Province.

Yes, the Minister says that it mainly affects the Cape, and we think the case that he gave was a case in the Cape, controlled by Cape provincial legislation, not legislation passed by other provinces and therefore applicable in the other provinces, and so the case may not arise except in the Cape. One might wonder, therefore, whether it is desirable really to have general legislation affecting the whole of the Republic, all four provinces, when the particular trouble that is being aimed at is one which is peculiar to the Cape and Cape legislation. However, I am not going to be dogmatic, and will look into the matter and trust that in the Committee Stage there will be an opportunity for fuller investigation of that aspect of the matter. Because we would regret the situation arising that general legislation applicable to the whole of the Republic shall be passed in that form, that Parliament be asked to pass it in that form, when indeed what is sought is to remedy a specific defect in one province. We have no objection to Parliament being asked to consider the granting of powers to the Administrator of the Cape if that is necessary, as may well be the case. In other words we do not object to Parliament legislating for and on behalf of one province if the province feels that it has not got the power to do so, but to make that legislation of general application all over the Republic when it is not necessary, might in turn create difficulties which are not foreseen at the present time. …

They may require it in time to come.

That may well be so that the other provinces will require it in time to come, but then it will depend upon the legislation in those other provinces, and not upon parliamentary legislation. This, Sir, is parliamentary legislation to put right what is wrong in provincial legislation, and so far from putting anything right in the other provinces we must be very careful not to open up a loophole in the other provinces which is going to create further difficulties. But as I say, I am not going to be dogmatic about it. We have had a very short opportunity to study this legislation and these matters involve some considerable research and investigation, especially by those of us who are not clothed with a degree of law.

Then I come to Clause 5. We have no difficulty about that. As regards Clause 6, I think that on this side of the House we always look with the very greatest care at any extension of the delegation of powers. It must always be our duty and our care to see that when Parliament permits of the delegation of powers from one authority, whether it is a Cabinet Minister, or anybody else, to someone else that we must as far as possible confine the power of delegation within fixed and known limits and the power of delegation should stop within those limits. It is, we think, a very good rule from the point of view of the public in general who are hitched around with so many laws and regulations to-day that when in fact in practice they think the law is being administered and the man to whom they think they can look is the Minister, they should not find that he has the power to delegate the powers to the Executive Committee, who, in turn, can delegate it to a local authority, and then further down to officials. We should always exercise the greatest care before granting such powers of delegation. I would have been happier if the hon. Deputy Minister had given us one or two concrete examples showing the precise necessity for this delegation and the powers it is considered should be so delegated. It is not in itself, we feel, a good thing that there should be this endless delegation of powers, particularly in the field of local authorities when it is coming down from a Minister through the provincial administrations down to the local authorities. We think every step should be considered with the greatest care and it should not be left in the general language which apparently is used in this clause. We like to see authority that has to be delegated, to be delegated specifically to someone who is specified, described, and with clear statement that the delegated authority rests and stands there, so that there can be no misunderstanding—the position should not be that that particular authority may somewhere or other find authority for a further delegation, and so on. We want to feel free at any time when specific instances come before us in Parliament to criticize the Minister concerned to whom the powers are conferred in the first place by Parliament, and we do not want Ministers to be in the happy position of being able to say: “Yes, but you allowed me to delegate that authority; read Clause So-and-So of the Act, and you will find that I had the right to delegate it; I delegated it to the administration and the executive committee, and the administrator may delegate it to a committee of the town council; it is no good asking me about it.” We do not want that position. If the Minister wants powers to confer powers upon town councils he should bring in legislation so that we can debate the matter. In this particular case we want to investigate this clause more fully and, when the Committee Stage is taken, perhaps the hon. Deputy Minister will be a little clearer and more specific about the details, and show us precisely what the powers are which he wishes to delegate, the substance of those powers, and in whom ultimately the delegated authority will rest for the purpose of administration of that particular law or power or authority which has been conferred upon the Minister himself.

Otherwise we are not opposed to the second reading.

I rise to support the hon. member who has just sat down. I am in complete agreement with him in regard to the question of irrigation.

I rise, however, principally to deal with the other question to which he devoted some time, namely Clause 4. This is a field of which I have considerable experience and I want to say quite honestly that I do not know what will be the effect of passing this proposed new sub-section (a) as it is set out in this Bill. It is very often the removal of conditions which has very important financial consequences to persons whom may be affected, quite apart from other consequences, and I support what the hon. member has said, namely that we must be extremely careful in regard to these matters. I must say that I believe that it may be possible that if one could talk to the official who drafted the Bill, to get further information and then it might be easier to deal with it, because the object is merely to get a satisfactory provision on the Statute Book. I must say that in the form in which the clause is at the present time I am extremely concerned about it because clauses which are passed to meet a particular set of circumstances which become part of the ordinary law of the land, are very often used for purposes very different from what was originally contemplated. So far as the Transvaal is concerned, in respect of this matter of restrictive conditions in titles, the position has been met satisfactorily because there must be an approved town-planning scheme. Were it not for the particular piece of legislation which is now being amended, the Transvaal town-planning scheme would have been of value for placing further restrictions, but it was not possible to clear up some of the anomalies which existed where due to the passing of time and the growth of cities old conditions had become quite inapplicable, and it was only after considerable time that legislation was passed, and undoubtedly, it helped tremendously to enable town-planning schemes to be of far greater value from a public point of view and from the point of view of private persons than they would otherwise have been. But where one goes beyond what is provided for in a town-planning scheme, I must say that in respect of its effect on the Transvaal and in respect of townships I am very nervous indeed, and I hope that it will be possible to find wording which will achieve the hon. Minister’s purpose in this specific matter, without throwing the floodgates wide open in respect of matters for which it was never intended to legislate.

I should like to refer to Clause 3 and what I want to say emanates from what the Minister has said, more than from what is contained in the clause itself. We are of course quite in favour of what the Minister is asking for here, viz. that the Provincial Councils are granted permission to use some of their funds for the erection of such a Trichardt monument. But the Minister also said that the monument would consist of a Voortrekker wagon and ten oxen. Now this is my objection. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he should recommend to the provinces that they should make it a “span” of oxen. The wagon can be smaller and the oxen may possibly also be smaller, but make it at least a team of 14 or 16 oxen, a “span”. If we want such a wagon and oxen as a symbol, then why have ten oxen? Why not make it 14 or 16, as it should be? I should like to suggest that the Minister should transmit my suggestion to the provincial councils and ask them, if possible, in so far as they can, to have the number of oxen which make up a span.

It is a long time since last I helped to inspan oxen. In fact, I was only six years of age when I left the farm, and I cannot now argue with the hon. member as to whether a wagon requires 16 oxen or not. I think I will convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the Historical Monuments Commission which rendered assistance in that regard, and ask them to go into the matter.

In regard to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), I can merely say that it is not the intention in this clause in regard to township schemes that the amendment being introduced should allow the administrator to go beyond the limits of the original scheme. It is only to enable the necessary amendments to be introduced in terms of the scheme submitted. The intention is that if the township scheme is submitted, the Administrator will in fact have the power to make amendments, but I would suggest that the hon. member discuss this matter further in the Committee Stage.

*The hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has raised two points, one in connection with the question of schools, whether we should not include schools in this Bill as well. I am informed that schools are already included under Section 18bis of Act 38 of 1945, the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. Section 18bis reads as follows—

I think this covers the point raised by the hon. member.

Regarding the point the hon. member made about Clause 4, we have this in common, I think, that both of us are not language authorities, and in this case I will refer the clause to our translators with the hon. member’s remarks and ask them once more to go into the matter and see whether it can be worded in some other way which will give better expression to the idea we have in mind. Regarding the request of the Opposition for more time to consider this clause, there will be sufficient time, I think, and I hope that time will be used so that we can get the opinion of the Opposition, and possibly amendments can be proposed because we want the greatest clarity and if possible full agreement on this clause.

Now we come to the question of delegation. Interesting enough this question of delegation of powers was first raised by the Natal Provincial Administration in connection with a letter received from the Durban City Council. They wrote to the Provincial Administration, and I have this on record, written by the Secretary of the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, a letter addressed to one of the department’s secretaries—

That is to say the delegation of functions of local authorities to committees and officials—

Then it continues—

I would like to refer to one more reference and this is from the “Verenigde Munisipale Bestuur van Suid-Afrika”. The note reads—

as we are doing now. I have other examples I can quote, but I do not think it is necessary. I would, however, like to make one last point in this regard, and it is this that the Minister has the right to withdraw this delegation which he has approved. The Bill reads—

So we have control, even Parliament keeps control because Parliament can in turn criticize the Minister. In any case I would like to listen to further arguments in this connection when we reach the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill is being introduced at the request of the Council of the University of Cape Town. The Council is experiencing difficulties from time to time in regard to business transactions of a financial nature, in view of the fact that some financial institutions express doubt as to the scope of the Council’s powers. This doubt arises even in the case of quite ordinary transactions like the purchase and sale of shares. As a rule the aforementioned firms generally accept the university’s statement that it has the necessary power in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 7 of the University of Cape Town Act, 1959, which reads as follows—

The most recent difficulty arose in regard to a proposed guarantee by the Council of the University to certain building societies under a scheme for raising housing loans for staff, in terms of which the Council guarantees part of the loan above the ordinary 75 per cent to a maximum of 90 per cent. The law advisers of various building societies express the opinion that the Council does not have the necessary power to issue this guarantee, and the University’s own attorney regards it as highly doubtful that the existing Act grants the Council this power.

In the circumstances the Council requests that the University of Cape Town Act be amended in such a way that all trouble and doubt will be eliminated for ever. In view of the fact that the proposed amendment is being introduced on behalf of an institution which originally became a corporate body as the result of an Act of Parliament, and which receives financial support from the State, and the object of the legislation is to grant powers which are merely intended to ensure the smooth working of the administrative machinery of the University, without prejudicing the rightful interests of anybody else in any way, the Government has stated its willingness to introduce this legislation and you, Mr. Speaker, allowed this Bill to be introduced and dealt with as a Public Bill.

This opportunity has also been utilized to improve antiquated provisions in the Act, by replacing “Governor-General” and “Union” by “State President” and “Republic” respectively.

That is what this amending Bill comprises.

I understood from the hon. the Minister that the Council of the University has asked for these amendments, except of course for the technical points to which the hon. the Minister referred towards the end of his speech. We have no objection to any of the amendments, nor to the Bill as such.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The amendments I am moving here are of a very minor nature. The intention is merely to place Section 7 (1) of the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act beyond all doubt. Hon. members will know that the 1930 Act provides that the State President is empowered, in consultation with the Fuel Research Institute, every year to impose a levy on each ton of coal sold during the past year for industrial purposes, or used by a coal mine for industrial purposes. In other words, there are two classes of coal on which a levy is imposed, viz. firstly coal sold for industrial purposes, and secondly coal used on a mine for industrial purposes. In 1963 this Act was consolidated, and when it was consolidated editorial alterations were also made. It now appears that there is doubt as to whether Section 7 (1) of the present Act precisely reflects the intention of Section 12 (3) of the old Act. Some people seem to be of the opinion that the present Act provides that the levy is imposed only on coal which is sold, and not on coal used at a coal mine for industrial purposes.

All we propose to do here is to change a few words in order to state the intention of the old Act beyond all doubt. There is no new principle involved; the old principle is being maintained, and there are merely editorial amendments, particularly in the Afrikaans text, which is being brought into line with the English text to state that intention beyond any doubt. In view of the fact that there is no new principle but that there are merely editorial amendments, I assume that the House will accept the Bill without any further trouble.

May I ask whether any trouble arose to cause this amendment? How did it come to be noticed that there was this difficulty?

The hon. the Minister is quite correct in not replying to the question of the previous speaker. For the reasons given by him he assumes correctly that this side of the House supports the measure.

Mr. Speaker, no trouble arose. It is merely that it was discovered that the possibility exists that trouble might arise in future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.