I move—

This Bill is short, necessary and good. It deals with a very old society in Cape Town, the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society which is a very peculiar institution in many respects. Hon. members will forgive me if I tell them something about its functions.

The funds under the control of the society amount to approximately R13,500,000. The assets exceed the liabilities by about R3,000,000 and it is a very flourishing institution in all respects but it belongs to nobody; even the assets do not belong to anybody. The funds under its control, however, belong to those people who have invested their money with it but the profits of the society belong to nobody because it is not a company in the true sense of the word but a society and there are no shareholders. It came into existence in a peculiar manner. More or less in 1830 a group of prominent citizens in Cape Town realized that it was necessary to have a savings bank in which the poorer people could invest their money. At that time nothing of that nature existed. About 100 of them came together and decided to establish this society. It was decided that the statutes should provide for the bank to have members and that there should be no fewer than 100 members but only with power to elect the directors and they had to be elected from those 100. They then approached Parliament, because theirs was not a company that could be established under any of the Company laws, to introduce special legislation under which the society could be established. They have been carrying on in that way for 135 years to take the money of the small man who wanted to invest his few pence. The bank then reinvested the money mainly on first mortage, but not in bonds over large buildings, because the intention was that it should be a bank to assist the small man to acquire his own home. As far as the rate of interest is concerned they have always been very conservative. The money they invest is always invested at the lowest rate of interest and they always pay the highest possible rate of interest on the money deposited with them. This limited the profits of the society to a great extent. But during the 135 years the assets of the society have increased to such an extent that they exceed the liabilities by R3,000,000 to-day.

New Bank laws have from time to time been introduced in South Africa and it has been necessary for this society to adapt itself to those laws. An ordinary company could do so by amending its statutes but because the constitution of this institution is contained in an Act they have had to approach Parliament every time to have their statutes amended. What they are doing now is once again to come to Parliament to have their statutes amended because the provisions of the new Banking Act demand it.

After the new Banking Act came into operation two years ago the Cape of Good Hope Savings Society got in touch with the Registrar of Banks and in conjunction with him they drafted a new bill. That Bill was submitted by the directors to the members and was approved of unanimously. What I am doing to-day is to come to Parliament to have the law changed so as to adapt it to the requirements of the new Banking Act. The way in which it is being adapted has the approval of the Registrar of Banks.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with the clauses in detail. My seconder, the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) will do that. He will go into detail. The details will really not reveal anything except that we are now conforming with the requirements of the new Banking Act. It is necessary that this be done so as to enable the society to carry on with its activities and to expand. I recommend it to hon. members.

I shall immediately proceed to deal with the individual clauses. Clause 1 (a) is really a change of words. The bank already has the power to carry on business as a savings bank or deposit-receiving institution, and it will now be worded that it will be able to carry on the business of a banking institution. It has already been classified as a savings bank by the Registrar of Banks. In addition, this amendment gives greater flexibility for the future should the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society decide to branch out in any way.

As far as Clause 1 (b) is concerned, that should be read with Clause 2, and this really has two purposes. The position is that in terms of the Banking Act the liabilities to the public of all types of financial institutions have been divided into three categories, namely short, medium and long-term liabilities. The present wording of the Society’s Act is such that an amendment is needed, and that is being introduced. It is interesting to see that the wording of the present clause is antiquated, and this is now being brought up to date. The present clause speaks, e.g., of receiving deposits from tradesmen, mechanics, labourers, servants, minor children, women, etc. In the new clause that quaint language is unnecessary and more general terms are used.

Then there is Clause 1 (c). Hitherto the Act has limited the investment of the Society’s funds in very confined types of securities. The present amendment broadens that to bring it into line with the wider categories allowed by the Banking Act.

Clause 1 (d) should be read with Clause 5. It simply brings about an amalgamation of the existing staff pension fund and the widows’ pension fund, and enables the bank to extend the benefits not only to the present staff, but also to former employees of the Society, their widows and dependants.

Clause 1 (e) simply changes rather a unique position. Hitherto the Society has allowed its mortgagors to choose from a panel of 63 insurance companies in insuring their properties against risk of loss by fire. That has been found to be impracticable and unwieldy and it has been decided now to limit their choice from 63 to six companies.

There are only two other clauses that need to be commented on. One is Clause 3. At present no director or member of the Society may receive remuneration from the society when acting for it. That might seem to have its advantages, but in fact it works as a brake on the affairs of the Society. Indeed I was told that if it had not been for this rule it would have been possible to brief learned counsel in this Chamber who may be members of the Society, against payment of a fee, to advise in respect of this particular Bill, but that they were prevented by the clause from doing so and had to go to outside counsel for the purpose. I think, Sir, you will agree that that is most unfortunate!

It will be noted that Clause 4 makes it possible to have an increase in the remuneration which the directors may receive from £2,500 to R10,800. That is not a case of pushing up the cost of the services rendered or anything else, because the Society as at present, even prior to this amendment, is granted power by its members to vote a higher remuneration for directors, and during the past several years has apparently been voting the full sum called for in the Bill.

Those are the clauses of the Bill. This is a unique society. At one time, as long ago as about the middle of the last century, it had nearly 27 branches all over the Cape Province. It is interesting that because of the competition, apparently, of the Post Office savings Bank, it found it expedient to reduce its branches from 27 to one. Just recently it started its second branch at Parow, and one hopes that, assisted by this Bill, the Society may continue to flourish and perhaps return to those days when it had more branches.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I want to be brief, and I hope the hon. the Minister will bear with me in the light of the remarks he made during the second reading. Sir, I want to speak on behalf of Natal only. Not only have I no mandate to speak on behalf of the other provinces, but the conditions in those provinces, as far as I know, are in many respects quite different from what they are in Natal. I want to say that in so far as Natal is concerned, I hope the Minister will make no appointments whatsoever in terms of the authority being conferred upon him by this Bill. I am referring to appointments of justices of the peace.

I have had prepared a list showing the officials who, in terms of the Act, were appointed as justices of the peace in the past, as well as of the officials, and the total coverage it gives in the whole of the province of Natal, and I want to tell the Minister that that coverage is adequate. It is adequate for the purposes of the election which is now to be fought, and as far as I can see probably also for the purposes of any future election. Sir, we in my party are fighting 25 seats in our province. No other party will fight more than ten. If the existing officials who can act as presiding officers in terms of the existing legislation are adequate for the purpose of the 25 seats we are going to fight, then I feel that those who are going to. fight ten seats or less have no cause for complaint, because we have adequate coverage.

The Bill which was before the House in the past and went to a Select Committee and was very thoroughly examined by officials on the Minister’s side and everyone else, including those on this side of the House, came to one conclusion and that is that the physical ballot papers should be in the hands only of Government officials and should never be in the hands of people associated with a political party. That was the crux of the whole matter, that the physical ballot paper should be in the hands of an official.

That is not the whole story.

Sir, it may not be the whole story; I am afraid that to-day we are likely to hear the other half of the story. But what we are concerned with is that those ballot papers of a person voting by post or of an incapacitated voter should not be in the hands of anybody directly associated with a political party. I do not propose for one moment, nor would you allow me, Sir, to go over the whole unsavoury history of postal votes, but after all the examination that took place and the care that was bestowed upon the present Act, it seems to me that once the principle was laid down it should have been adhered to, namely that the people regarded by the persons who drafted that Bill as being adequate for the purpose of acting as presiding officers should have been adhered to. It is this last-minute attempt to bring in these new appointments that I am against.

Order! That principle was passed at second reading.

Sir, the Bill proposed to give the Minister power to make certain appointments. That is the effect of the Bill. I am dealing with the effect of the appointment of these justices of the peace and I am trying to point out that I hope that in my province the Minister will not appoint those justices of the peace. There is no need for them. If the Minister wants the Electoral Act to work efficiently in Natal, that can be ensured by the people enumerated in the Act already, and who have already received their appointments. The Minister’s Department sent out notices in the past, presumably preparatory to the Minister taking the powers which will flow from this Bill.

No, no, no.

The Minister says no. I think he has already been offered sight of a letter sent out by one of his own officials, a magistrate.

That was in connection with filling existing vacancies.

The terms of the letter certainly do not convey that. I am concerned with the Minister exercising his powers. In that case, and in every other case in my province, I say to the Minister that there is no need for him to exercise any of the powers granted to him by this Bill. I hope the Minister will adopt that as his guiding principle and that in Natal he will not appoint anybody, but leave the Act to operate in terms of the existing legislation.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) says he wants no more justices of the peace appointed in Natal. The way I view the matter is that it is the duty of every Government to see to it that the machinery of State functions properly and the Department of the Interior, under whose aegis elections take place, is indeed part of the machinery of State. If a portion of that machinery does not function properly in Natal, therefore, the hon. member for South Coast must not blame the Government if the postal vote section of the election does not function properly. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government have had the foresight to realize that if that section of the Electoral Act does not function properly, if there are stumbling blocks, they have to ensure that the necessary legislation is there to see to it that it does indeed function properly. This Bill makes provision for that. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister of Justice stated clearly that he would not appoint justices of the peace left and right; there had to be a need for them. He mentioned the constituency of Mayfair, for example, where they do not have the necessary people for whom the law provides. The same position obtains in my own constituency of Prinshof. There too there are no police stations or railway stations or magistrates offices. If an election were to take place there I shall make ample use of this legislation and ask the Minister to appoint justices of the peace thus making the election possible. Who will be blamed if something goes wrong in the handling of postal votes? The Government. And who will be the first to blame the Government? The Opposition. We have to ensure that the Electoral Act functions properly and that is why we are pleased that the Minister has come forward with this amending Bill to prevent anything going wrong with the machinery which has been established by the Electoral Act.

Is Prinshof in

Natal?

No, but Natal is in the Republic.

I am talking in general and I think the Government had a mandate from the electorate to see to it that elections take place properly. The hon. member talks about Natal only but it still rests with the hon. the Minister to do something if there are people in Natal who do not agree with the hon. member. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having introduced this amending legislation and we on this side of the House, who represent the majority of the voters, welcome it. We are sure the machinery will operate smoothly because of the amending legislation we have before us.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) was Chairman of the Select Committee which dealt with postal votes. He summed up and virtually gave expression to the reason why this side of the House has grave objections to this Bill when he said to the Minister of Justice that he hoped that very few justices of the peace would be appointed in terms of this Bill. He said that notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister will now have the power not only to double the number, but to appoint an unlimited number of J.P.s. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central), having presided over this Commission for more than a year, and being most knowledgeable in this field, appreciated the harm this Bill would do the work of the Commission, and the sort of doubt that we have had from this side of the House during this debate. I repeat our objections.

They are, firstly, that all the work of that Select Committee by which postal votes were to be handled by Government officials is being almost entirely swept away; and, secondly, by this measure the Minister of Justice, albeit unwittingly, is changing the character of justices of the peace and rendering them no service at all.

Sir, involved in this Bill is a retreat by the hon. the Minister of the Interior from the position he took up when he piloted through the House the amendment to the Electoral Act last year. He took up the position that there were more than enough public servants to handle the postal votes. We have had no satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister of Justice to show that that position has changed. It is true that he cited to us that in Edenvale and in Germiston there were relatively few J.P.s, but he did not in any way deal with the fact that under the definition of presiding officers in Section 1 of the Electoral Consolidation Act, a vast number of senior public servants, of whom there are many in that area, have the power to appoint other public servants to operate under them in fulfilment of these duties as presiding officers for absent votes. In the areas of Germiston and Edenvale there are magistrates’ courts and post offices and all kinds of institutions with officials who themselves can act and who can appoint other junior officials to act under them. That being so, we have had no adequate explanation why that could not have been done. Indeed, I cannot see any reason why people could perhaps not have been transferred even from another area, if there was any particular shortage of Government servants in one particular area. There has been no evidence of that, and that avenue has not been adequately explored. When we find that, it inevitably arouses one’s suspicions. In a case of this kind it is most important not only that fair play should occur but that it should be seen to occur. In that respect we have had unhappinesses already brought to our attention. It was mentioned that the Nationalist Party election agent for the Kimberley (South) seat is apparently a J.P. and acting in the constituency. We are getting word from all sorts of quarters. Here I have the news that eight appointments of justices of the peace at Kroonstad, all Nationalists, are all actively engaged in the election fight. Here I have another bit of information from Standerton: “Nat. Chief Postal Vote Agent, Standerton, just appointed justice of the peace, plus nine other Nats, and no vacancies left.” The position is that it is quite obvious that people actively engaged in the election in these constituencies, and doubtless in others, are being pulled in as J.P.s. That proves beyond any doubt that our averment that the character of J.P.s is being changed is true, and that they are being equated to the people who were appointed by the candidates in the past. The hon. the Minister of Justice came here most indignantly the other day and was extremely annoyed at any suggestion that there should not be fair play, but I ask him to answer the positions set out in these telegrams. These are the people who are appointed by him. He may say that he has not the vaguest idea what their political leanings are, but we know what their political leanings are, and because he chooses to shut his eyes to the position he must not expect us to be happy about it.

We have heard from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that in Natal they see their way clear to carry on on the basis of the present Electoral Act with the present number of J.P.s, who were intended to be a mere insignificant part of this postal vote system. We had the word of the Minister of the Interior last year that he had more than enough officers to ensure that this system would not break down. We have had no explanation as to why it was not possible to use the wide powers in Section 1 of the Electoral Act. And we say that it leaves us extremely unhappy, on the eve of an election, in the face of messages pouring in to us of the appointments being made in regard to postal votes, and we say it is a most retrograde step and we are entirely opposed to it.

With the best will in the world, Sir, I cannot understand the opposition of the Opposition to the consequences which will flow from this measure if it is placed on the Statute Book. In particular I cannot understand how the members of the Opposition who served on the Select Committee can be opposed to this measure. It is very clear to me that this Bill is being placed on the Statute Book not with the object of watering down the recommendations of the Select Committee or of circumventing the provisions of the Electoral Act. The opposite is the case as far as I am concerned. It has become necessary to have this legislation and the effect will be that it will be possible to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee and the provisions of the Electoral Act in practice. It is no good a Select Committee making recommendations and the Electoral Act containing certain provisions if they cannot be carried out. During the 1961 election 1,200 postal votes were issued in the Wolmaransstad constituency. I can assure the House that with the limited number of officials mentioned in the schedule as officials who may handle postal votes, if justices of the peace were to be excluded, it will be absolutely impossible for those persons to handle these postal votes in a limited space of time together with their daily office duties. If the staff in those offices cannot handle the postal votes it will be impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee and the provisions of the Electoral Act or else you will have to deny a large number of registered voters the right to cast their vote. I again want to emphasize the fact that because the Select Committee have made certain recommendations as a result of which certain provisions of the Electoral Act concerning postal votes have been amended, it is the moral duty and responsibility of the Government to ensure that these postal votes can be handled. There is only one alternative in order to keep these postal votes out of the hands of political parties or out of the hands of people directly associated with parties and that is to empower the Minister of Justice to appoint a sufficient number of justices of the peace. The Rules of the House do allow me to ask about the functions of a justice of the peace at the third reading but hon. members will agree with me when I say I accept that the persons who will be appointed will be honourable persons. To me it makes not the slightest difference to which political party they belong. They are bound by a certain code and I have no objection to their handling postal votes.

I want to say to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that I do not think he has any right to speak on behalf of all the voters in Natal.

Oh yes, I have.

[Laughter.] That is where the hon. member for South Coast makes the mistake. In passing I just want to say that after the next election he will realize that he has been talking on behalf of a much smaller number of voters than he thinks at the moment. The hon. member for South Coast apparently does not know that all the laws passed by this House are also applicable to Natal. I can tell him that the people in Natal also welcome the steps taken in this Bill and I speak on behalf of every absent voter when I say that every absent voter who is anxious to cast his vote is grateful for and welcomes this measure because it makes it easier for him to cast his vote. It will have the result that every voter will have the right to cast his vote whereas, if the third reading is not passed, I can assure, you, Sir, the existing number of public servants will not be able to handle all the postal votes. As I have said on a previous occasion that is precisely what the Opposition want. They do not have the necessary postal machinery to ensure that all their absent supporters vote through the post; what they really want is that there should not be any postal votes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, in stating his case for this Bill, has completely overlooked the fact that by bringing this amendment he is destroying the basis on which justices of the peace have been appointed in the past. The whole object of their appointment in the past was to appoint worthy people who would fulfill their duties quite impartially in respect of the different sections of the community. Here it is already obvious, inter alia, from the speech just made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, that J.P.s are being brought directly into the political field. There is already evidence of it. I have here the names of J.P.s recently appointed to fill the vacancies in the Stander-ton constituency. The number is six in every ward. I understand—I will not give the percentage because it would not be proper—that the overwhelming majority of those are known to be active members of the Nationalist Party.

The recent appointees in that instance and in another case—I refer to Kroonstad which has already been mentioned—are being referred to in the Press, inter alia, as being supporters of the Nationalist Party. Sir, by passing this Bill we are degrading the position of a justice of the peace.

What did your party do while it was in power?

Sir, I am not interested in what happened in the past; I believe in looking forward and therefore I would expect the hon. member to support me. Justices of the peace have been honoured members of the community and here they are being brought directly into the political field. Sir, this is the sort of thing we will hear. I quote—

[Interjection.]

Sir, this appears in a letter addressed to the hon. the Minister of Justice, and the hon. member can ask the hon. the Minister to show it to him if he wishes to do so. I say that the Government is doing a disservice to justices of the peace by putting this measure on the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister referred in the earlier stages of this Bill to discussions with a view to improving the Electoral Act. Sir, I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell us whether at the time the Electoral Act was amended last year there was any intention on the Dart of the Government, when the ink was hardly dry on the Bill, to come along and change the whole basis of the appointment of justices of the peace so that there could be a vast increase in the numbers to be appointed. I believe that this measure should not be passed; I sincerely hope that before the Bill goes to the Other Place the Government will reconsider the position. I have no doubt that if the Bill is proceeded with many very honourable members of the community who are at present justices of the peace will very much regret the way in which that honoured position is being lowered by bringing it directly into the political field, as is the result of this measure. There was no suggestion, at the time the Electoral law was reviewed, that a Bill of this kind would be brought forward and I say that no case has been made out for this great increase in the number of appointees. That is the major objection to the Bill.

The other objections have been stated here and I ask the hon. Minister to weigh this matter very carefully before he takes what I believe will be a most retrograde step in respect of justices of the peace and in respect of our Electoral laws.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), who has just resumed his seat, has, with reference to a telegram he received from Standerton, mentioned things with only half the facts. [Interjections.] No, in general it is true but it is not the whole truth, and I should like to give the House the benefit of all the facts.

I want to come back to what happened earlier in this debate. The Opposition has no objection to justices of the peace being appointed, but they object to the fact that possibly Nationalists will be appointed, and they object to that because Nationalists, in the eyes of the hon. members for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) and Germiston (District), must necessarily be dishonourable people. That is what is behind the whole matter, and it is part of the atmosphere being created against this Bill. This atmosphere is being created in advance because they know they will lose the election and they are already taking the precaution of saying that the governing party, which is going to win the election, won it by means of fraud. We will hear that argument from them in future. The hon. member for Germiston (District) makes himself guilty of it, he who is always the gentleman on that side of the House, who always poses as such a good man. Appointments have been made in the Standerton constituency. I do not know whether they are all Nationalists, because I do not know all of these persons. The fact is that there were so many vacancies under the old Act, and even if we had not amended the Act the Minister could still have made those appointments. That is one fact which the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) does not mention. Now that I mention it he agrees, but he kept silent about it a moment ago.

I expressly said so.

Then my ears must have deceived me. But let me give you the further facts. Sir. The fact is that the hon. the Minister did not ask me to make recommendations. The Minister asked the magistrate to make recommendations, and he made them. I suppose I shall now hear that this magistrate is also a scoundrel because he is perhaps in cahoots with the Minister of Justice or with me. The Minister asked the magistrate to make recommendations, and the magistrate did not consult me; he uses his own judgment in these matters. Does the hon. member for Pinelands think that the magistrate seeks guidance from everybody in the constituency or from the Member of Parliament? I do not even live there. The magistrate writes to the Minister and submits a list of names to him. The Minister then asks me whether I know those people. I simply told him that they were all good. I know only one of them in particular. [Laughter.] I do not know what the reason for this hilarity is. As far as I am concerned they are all good people because I know nothing bad about them.

But you said you did not know them at all.

The hon. member for

Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) should not put words into my mouth. The fact is that I have not the slightest objection to any of those people. In the case of some of them I know what their political convictions are, but in the case of others I do not know their political convictions, and what is more, some of them are in the district of Standerton but not in my constituency. That the hon. the Minister also knows; he simply asks the magistrate and the magistrate, in the ordinary course of events, recommends these people.

I come back to the point I made in the second reading namely that on the part of the Opposition there is a smouldering resentment, a burning hatred, of the National Party and those who hold authority in that party. It makes not the slightest difference whether it concerns a person as modest as a justice of the peace, or anyone else, but that feeling must always be expressed!

This Bill will make it possible for all the absent voters who want to vote to have the opportunity to do so, and that is the object of the Bill, as the hon. member for Wolmarans-stad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) said a moment ago. The great idea underlying this Bill is that even United Party members should have the opportunity to vote and that their votes will be counted in that election. But we also want that, because we are keen on knowing how fast the United Party is deteriorating, and it is of great interest to us to know it. Therefore we very much want these people to vote, and that will be achieved by this Bill. This Bill will go even further; it may perhaps lead to hon. members opposite explaining to themselves why they have this feeling of resentment when the Government party introduces a measure to facilitate the election.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) raised certain queries and I want to reply to the hon. member immediately. In regard to the first query raised by him, namely the appointment of justices of the peace in Natal, my reply is perfectly simple and I gave it in the second reading. In terms of the hon. member’s question, if existing appointments are adequate, it stands to reason that no further appointments will be made; I made that perfectly clear. That applies not only to Natal but also to the whole of the Republic of South Africa.

I accept your promise for Natal.

I am not dealing with Natal as a specific entity; I am dealing with the Republic and I say here that in no constituency and in no ward for that matter will appointments be made unless it is necessary for the purpose of bringing out all the votes. If it is not necessary to make any appointments, then no appointments will be made.

Who will decide?

I will decide after having heard the evidence of the various …

Nationalist organizers.

… magistrates who are in charge of the various electoral divisions. Sir, let us put the record straight. The hon. member for South Coast, in referring to the committee which went into the whole question of postal votes made this statement—

Surely the hon. member knows that that is not what the committee recommended. He should know that what the committee recommended was that, inter alia, the following people should not only act as presiding officers but that they must in fact be allowed to take, to use his words, ballot papers into their hands: “senators, Members of Parliament, members of the provincial council who are not themselves candidates in the electoral division concerned, and not more than 12 persons nominated by each candidate and appointed as such by the returning officer, provided that where the area of an electoral division comprises more than 12 magisterial districts, each candidate must have as many persons appointed as there are magisterial districts.” Does the hon. member for South Coast realize that if this recommendation was adopted by the Minister of the Interior, then in at least five constituencies in Natal you would have had 36 additional appointments in each of five constituencies.

*Now we come to the other argument that we have heard here so frequently. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), in spite of what we have said here and in spite of what one’s common sense tells one, again comes along with the argument that the presiding officer has the power under the Act to nominate officials to deal with postal votes. Does the hon. member not realize what the Electoral Laws provide in this respect? Or does the hon. member take no notice of the Electoral Laws; does he find it unnecessary to go and read the Electoral Laws? Does he not know that the Electoral Laws specifically provide as far as officials are concerned that those officials may only deal with postal votes in their offices; that is to say, the magistrate in the office where he is stationed, or the police official at the police station where he is stationed, or the station master at the station of which he is station master? Does the hon. member not realize that the official cannot leave his office and go to some other area in the constituency to attend to postal votes there? That is what the Electoral Laws provide.

But he can appoint people to do so.

Assuming that it could be done, what would it mean? It would mean that the State, just because there is a possibility that those people may be needed, would have to go and hire offices in the area of jurisdiction of every justice of the peace throughout the whole of the Republic and that it would have to appoint a special official who would have to go and sit in that office in case his services are needed. Sir, surely that would be a foolish thing to do. Hon. members opposite have again come along with the old story that “fair play must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.” After all, the function of these people is simply to administer an oath, and if the hon. member had taken the elementary trouble to go and read the Electoral Laws, he would have known that he has the right under the Electoral Laws to appoint as many United Party agents as he likes to go and sit there the whole day to see that there is “fair play”. Or are they going to appoint blind persons who cannot ensure that there is fair play? Surely the hon. member knows that he has the right of access to the offices where these people take the oath and that representatives of his party may go and sit there to see what is going on. Surely the hon. member knows that. This change was brought about to the Electoral Act for that very purpose.

They do not have enough people to appoint.

Yes, their problem may be that in certain cases they do not have enough supporters to go and sit in those offices, but that is something for which the hon. member must not blame me.

The hon. member has again mentioned the Kimberley example. But, Sir, the Kimberley example has nothing whatsoever to do with this measure. Why drag the Kimberley example into the debate on this measure?

It was never the intention under the old Act

What does the Electoral Act provide? Or does the hon. member not understand the Electoral Act? I want to put forward this suggestion for the hon. member’s consideration that he should get counsel’s opinion on this matter! I think the hon. member would be well advised to do so, because under the Electoral Laws every justice of the peace has the right, which the Electoral Laws give any presiding officer, to attend to postal votes. Surely the hon. member knows that there are justices of the peace who belong to the United Party, and I want to put this straightforward question to the hon. member: Does he dispute the fact that this Government in appointing people as justices of the peace has done so without having regard to their political convictions? The hon. member knows that that is so.

I say that hitherto very few justices of the peace have had anything to do with postal votes.

That is not the point. The argument is that the National Party makes use of a justice of the peace at Kimberley to attend to postal votes for it, and I say that under the old Electoral Laws, without the passing of this measure, the National Party has the fullest right to do so. There is nothing in the Act to prevent the National Party from doing so, and there is nothing in the Act to prevent the United Party from similarly making use of justices of the peace.

We were against that Act.

The question is not whether the hon. member was for or against it; the question is what are the facts? The fact of the matter is that there are justices of the peace who belong to the National Party and there are justices of the peace who belong to the United Party, and the Electoral Laws provide that justices of the peace may act as presiding officers. The National Party makes use of that right that it has to use the services of justices of the peace, irrespective of whether they are Nationalists or not. But let us assume that this justice of the peace is a Nationalist. The National Party prefers to make use of the services of a Nationalist justice of the peace and there is nothing to prevent the hon. member from making use of the services of a United Party justice of the peace …

They are difficult to get.

I want to put this question to the hon. member (and this is the crux of the matter): Is the hon. member’s accusation that the Government does not appoint United Party supporters as justices of the peace? Is that the hon. member’s accusation? I am not talking now about an isolated case; I am talking about the policy and the actions of the Government.

I am talking about the facts that we have before us.

I will come to those facts. The fact of the matter is—and the hon. member must face that—that when his party was in power, their policy was not to appoint Nationalists—and I proved that here in this House, chapter and verse, by quoting from a speech made by the then Minister of Justice on 5 May 1947. The then Minister went on to say that he would appoint Labourites and Dominates and, if necessary, also communists.

Do you agree with that?

No, I do not agree with it. The policy of this Government, as I stated very clearly on that occasion, and I want to state it very clearly again, is this: My predecessors felt that the policy of the United Party was an untenable policy. My predecessors then proceeded to put justices of the peace back on the pedestal on which they should be placed, and they did so by appointing them without having regard to their political convictions. Very explicit instructions were given, as the hon. member knows, that no inquiries were to be made as to the man’s political convictions and that the Minister was not to be told, “this man is a United Party supporter”, or “that man belongs to this, that or the other party” all the Minister had to be told was, “I recommend these people as honourable leaders in the community”

But the policy is a failure.

From whose point of view?

I can well understand that there may be cases where all the persons who are recommended are Nationalists; I can also appreciate that there may be cases where all the persons who are recommended are United Party supporters; that I can quite understand, but when I appoint a person I am not interested in his political convictions; as a matter of fact, I do not even know what his political convictions are, because I do not know all these people; a list of persons recommended for appointment is submitted to me and I have no idea what their political convictions are.

Yes, but they are also actively engaged in politics whereas magistrates are not.

Sir, let us analyze the hon. member’s argument. He keeps on talking about Kroonstad. Let me just say as far as Kroonstad is concerned that four appointments were made in every electoral district to fill existing vacancies. That has nothing to do with this measure either. Under the old Act there were four vacancies to be filled in each electoral district. I received recommendations from the magistrate and I made the necessary appointments. I can well imagine that there are communities in which there is no leading United Party supporter. If there are such communities, does the hon. member want to come and blame me for it? After all, I cannot make a leader out of a United Party supporter if he is not a leader; I cannot even keep him a leader if he is not one. But let us see what the position is. We are now talking about Kroonstad; I do not know the people there, nor does the hon. member know them, but let us look at the appointments made here in the Cape. I was only able to get this information in respect of the Cape because it is readily available here; I want to give hon. members a list of the Cape justices of the peace, and they must remember that we are just as interested in this matter in the Cape as they are because we are fighting an election in Gardens—and we are not fighting an election in Gardens just for show or just to keep the United Party occupied.

Give us the dates of the appointments please.

I will also give the hon. member the dates where they are available. Let me start at the top of the list. Mr. C. O. Booth; the date of his appointment is not available; Mr. A. M. Jack-son, appointed in 1947; Mr. H. M. Bowman—the hon. member knows him—appointed in 1959; Mr. H. Mathews, appointed in 1959; Mr. W. J. Peters, the present mayor of Cape Town, appointed in 1960; Mr. I Frank, 1960, Mr. J. Klue, 1964; Mr. A. S. Hooper (date not available); Mr. R. P. Gain (date not available); Mr. C. J. Sibbett, 1950; Mr. B. S. de Villiers, 1955; Mr. W. P. van Breda, ex-magistrate, 1963; Rabbi Abrahams, 1947; Mr. A. H. Honikman, 1960; Mr. B. Gradner, 1963; …

That is the old type of justice of the peace.

But, Sir. it is precisely with the old type of justice of the peace with whom the hon. member is quarrelling in the case of the Kroonstad appointees, because this measure has not yet been passed and I cannot therefore appoint new justices of the peace. The hon. member has asked for this information and I want him to listen now: Dr. L. C. Abrahams, 1949; Mr. R. J. du Toit, former M.P. (date not available); Mr. Werdmuller (date not available); Mr. L. J. Heller, 1944; Mr. P. D. Roman, 1958; Mr. G. F. Viljoen, 1959; Mr. A. J. van Wyk, 1963. We then go further down the list and we find the following names: Messrs. de Vries, Miller, Kruger, de Kock. Of the 27 justices of the peace appointed in the Cape Town electoral district, 17 are English speaking and ten Afrikaans speaking. The hon. member has now received this letter from the United Party candidate in Kroonstad—I also received such a letter—and I want to repeat that all that happened there is that four vacancies were filled in each electoral district in the normal course of events. I accept that these people are Nationalists, because this person alleges that they are, but as far as I am concerned that does not matter. I did not appoint these people because they are Nationalists, but I am most certainly not going to discharge them now because they happen to be Nationalists.

In spite of the fact that they are actively engaged in politics?

The hon. member wants to know from me whether I deplore the fact that they are actively engaged in politics. Are United Party justices of the peace not actively engaged in politics? Sir. every person who wants to take part in politics does so, but, moreover, there is no obligation upon any justice of the peace to attend to postal votes; that the hon. member also knows, because it is provided for in the Electoral Laws, but he also knows that no justice of the peace is called upon to attend to postal votes unless he has been nominated by a certain voter who wishes to vote before him. He has no role to play in this connection therefore unless he is nominated by a voter to play that role. Hon. members would have had a legitimate grievance if these appointments had been made under the old set-up when only United Party supporters were appointed, when only members from the ranks of the Opposition were appointed, but to-day that is no longer the position. Surely hon. members know that these people are appointed without having any regard to their party affiliations. But I am certainly not going to disqualify a person or refuse to appoint him as a justice of the peace just because he is a Nationalist in order to satisfy the Opposition. Sir, let us go further. The hon. member says that with this Bill I am dragging the justices of the peace directly into the political field. It is not I who dragged them into the political field. As a matter of fact my predecessors and I are the people who took them out of the political field in which the hon. member’s party allowed them to operate. The hon. member was a prominent member of the United Party in those days. Why did he never object to the fact that it was the policy of his party to appoint only United Party supporters as justices of the peace?

That was not the policy. May I out a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister admit that what the then Minister said was that “If everything else is equal, then I will choose United Party supporters”?

The hon. member must look at this matter in its proper context. The quarrel between the parties at that time was over the fact that a Nationalist had not been appointed. It is true that that is what the then Minister said when he was cornered, but he refused to appoint the Nationalist in question. He said candidly that he was taking full responsibility for the fact that he had not appointed him, and he said that he had not appointed him because he was a Nationalist, not because there was anything against him. If the hon. member wants to know more about it he can go and read Hansard and there he will see that that is what happened.

It was not United Party policy.

The hon. member knows that that is so. Not only was it United Party policy but circular letters were sent out to say that Nationalists were not to be appointed to these posts. The hon. member knows that this did not apply to justices of the peace only; it also applied to the farmers’ assistance committees and it applied to sworn appraisers; their policy was to appoint United Party supporters only. There was not a single committee to which this rule did not apply. Circular letters were sent to the magistrates informing them that they were not to appoint Nationalists. Sir, the facts belie the arguments advanced here by the hon. member. The hon. member comes along and talks about “recent political appointees” under this Bill. Sir, these lists are brought up to date from time to time: when vacancies occur under the old Act the lists are brought up to date from time to time. Why cast these suspicions even before this Bill has been passed? I repeat that the only reason why the Opposition adopted this attitude was because initially they believed, and were misled to believe, that this Government was following the same policy which the United Party had followed, that is to say, to appoint United Party supporters only. Now that they have discovered that that is not the position, they come along and make these appointments suspect without having any facts or grounds for doing so.

To conclude the debate, I want to make it clear—I said so at the beginning but it seems to me that hon. members still do not understand it—that this Bill was merely designed to play safe. Whereas formerly not 1 per cent of the postal votes had to be done by officials—and for this we have the authority of the hon. member for Durban (Point)—the position to-day is that more than 90 per cent of the postal votes have to be done by them. We are now going to have an entirely new set-up. In the main it will be the officials of my Department who will have to do that work. I believe that in the majority of cases they will be able to cope with it, but

I am not going to take any chances, and I do not want my officials to get the blame eventually if anything does go wrong. I am therefore taking the necessary steps timeously in order to protect my officials and to ensure that the election goes off smoothly. It will not help me to come and complain after the election that there were not enough justices of the peace and that the Act provides that justices of the peace may take part in the election. In spite of the attempt on the part of the Opposition to sow suspicion in this connection. I propose to appoint the necessary justices of the peace, without taking any notice of the suspicion-mongering by the Opposition, if and when I am approached by presiding officers or by the candidates themselves with the complaint that there are certain bottlenecks and that difficulty is being experienced in handling all the postal votes. I am definitely not going to allow myself to be impressed or intimidated by the attempt on the part of hon. members on the other side to make justices of the peace suspect into refusing to make the necessary appointments. If it is not necessary to make appointments, then no appointments will be made. For the rest, whatever the Opposition may say, I am going to protect the officials of my Department, because I have a responsibility in this connection as a member of the Government and because it is the officials of my Department in particular who are concerned in this matter.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—78: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Uvs, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg. M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—38: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennet, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In my absence the amendment has already been moved and the hon. the Minister was giving it consideration. I shall be very glad if he could tell us what his conclusion was in respect of the matter.

I have gone very carefully into the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I am able to accept the principle contained in the amendment. As far as the wording is concerned, some change will have to be brought about for reasons which I will mention to the hon. member. But I can accept and I am prepared to accept the principle. That will mean, however, that amendments will also have to be brought about in Clauses 27 and 28, clauses which have already been passed by the Committee. It will mean that we will not be able to bring about the amendment in Clause 29. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, Sir. The clauses have already been put. I understand that there are certain snags which preclude me from accepting the amendment at this stage. I will, however, move the amendment in the Other Place to give effect to the principle which the hon. member for Germiston (District) has in mind. I do not think it is necessary for us to discuss the matter further here, but I shall take the necessary steps in the Other Place.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) moved this amendment in my absence and we are both very grateful to the hon. the Minister for accepting the principle. In view of the technical difficulties I suggest the hon. member withdraws the amendment so that the clause can go through unopposed. The Minister can then deal with the matter in the Other Place.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the English text of the amendment that I have in mind and that I propose to move will read as follows—

Then there are also the consequential amendments. I will bring about an amendment of this nature in the Other Place. That will cover then the position which the hon. member has in mind.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has undertaken to do that in the Other Place. While we are on the subject I am sure the hon. the Minister would like to give attention to the other amendments which might flow from this. The hon. the Minister did not mention Clauses 29, 30 and 31. As the hon. the Minister has raised the point it does appear that when he considers the amendments in the Other Place all the clauses in Part V will need a consequential amendment. In fact the whole of Part V will call for consequential amendment. The hon. Minister mentioned Clauses 27 and 28.

The hon. the Minister referred to previous clauses. The hon. member can raise the point under the clauses concerned.

In the circumstances, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn, with leave.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

I rise to support what the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said on an earlier clause. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would consider referring to other institutions in this clause. It may possibly be easier to deal with the matter by including these other institutions in the definition of “bank”. It is a matter of great inconvenience to financial institutions …

If this amendment is accepted it follows because the definition of “banks” will include building societies. That will apply right through.

Thank you very much.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

Section 5 of the Evidence Act used to read “in any legal proceedings” so that the rule as to the validity of the instrument is now being confined to civil proceedings in this Bill.

This Bill refers to civil proceedings only.

Yes. Is the Evidence Act which applied to all legal proceedings, not only civil proceedings, now to be amended or is it to be completely repealed so that this rule will not apply at all in criminal proceedings? I raise the point because the Evidence Act provides at the moment that “in any legal proceedings an instrument, the validity of which at attestation is requisite may …” Then it follows more or less along the same lines. If this is now to become “civil proceedings” then the other proceedings, that is to say, criminal proceedings, would not seem to be catered for here.

No. May I just explain. The hon. member will find the answer on page 20 of the Bill:

Act No. 14 of 1962, Evidence Act, 1962. Para. 3, Section 4 amended by the substitution for the word “legal” of the word “criminal” and 4. Section 5 amended by the substitution for the word “legal” of the word “criminal”. That covers the point.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 36,

The date given in this clause is 15 March 1962. That does not have any great significance immediately in the world of evidence. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate why that date has been chosen. [Interjections.]

Has counsel (the hon. member for Pinelands) given you the reply?

The answer appears to be that it has something to do with the Evidence Act.

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 37,

In this regard it appears in the first instance to be an unnecessary clause. It says “Nothing in this part shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which would apart from the provisions of this part be admissible” Now, Sir, if this part does not affect any such provisions then it is admissible; if it does affect it then it is not admissible. Then it goes on “render admissible documentary evidence as to any declaration relating to a matter of pedigree, if that declaration would not have been admissible as evidence if this part had not been enacted.” This is the sort of difficulty one gets into when one is half-codifying one’s law. The difficulty arises again in another clause. I shall deal with it when we get to that clause. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that where this Act does not affect the law relating to the admissibility of evidence then it is not affected. If it means that, Sir, then it is redundant; it seems to be quite unnecessary. If, on the other hand, it means that there are some rules of evidence which could in fact be affected by this party but are to be excluded from the operation of the Act I do not think anyone in the world will ever know what the intention of this clause is. I hope the hon. the Minister will clear this up.

As I told hon. members this Bill comes from the Law Revision Committee. That Committee tells me that they must have this clause just to make assurance doubly sure. I am the last one to argue with these learned gentlemen. If they say they must have it, that it is necessary, then, candidly, Sir, I accept the position. I am not in a position to argue with them at all. I am told that we might run into all sorts of snags if we don’t have this double safeguard and it is for that very reason that it was put in. I am told that it means exactly what it says.

This clause is very important. May I just put this to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell): He knows the rule of the interpretation of law expressio unius, exclusio ulterius.

Est exclusio ulterius.

My Latin may not be as good as his, but he knows what I am talking about. If we pass this measure without that clause then the position may be that all things that are mentioned are included but the things that are not mentioned are excluded. That is why this clause is essential. If this clause had not been inserted then some of us would certainly have asked that it be inserted.

Arising out of the reply of the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) he might enlighten the House as to whether the legal advisers are busy at this stage on codifying the remainder of the law …

Order!

It arises out of the fact that provision is made here in order to ensure …

The reply is “no”

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; but the hon. member for Stander-ton (Dr. Coertze) talked about the expression expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This is of course a canon of construction of any statute, dealing not only with statutes but with common law as well. Of course the expression of the one is the exclusion of the other. That must follow. If there is anything in this Bill, when it becomes an Act, which is contrary to the Law of Evidence, either the common law or the statute law, then obviously it falls away to that extent. I agree with the hon. the Minister that the Law Revision Committee consists of a body of most distinguished legal gentlemen. I also agree with him, without having them here to examine them, to determine exactly what they meant. Sir, I am just a simple lawyer. One looks at this thing and one has to apply it. The gentleman to whom the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Frone-man) referred, i.e., the attorney practising at Prieska, is entitled to have a look at this and to say: “What on earth does it mean? Why did they put it in?” There is another canon of construction which the hon. member for Standerton will be well aware of and that is that one must, in construing statutes endeavour to place some meaning upon the statutes. One must assume that the legislature meant something by it. What I want to know is what does the legislature mean by it? The hon. the Minister says he really does not know what it means. He says the Law Revision Committee want it and that if they want it, being the learned gentlemen they are, they are entitled to have it. That is all very well. I would agree that if the Law Revision Committee want it there might be a very good reason for it. But if the reason is merely to state the obvious then it seems it is unnecessary. And if it is unnecessary it is likely to cause endless difficulty to people who, by virtue of the canon of construction that the legislature meant something, will endeavour to place a meaning on it. If it means that where anything is in conflict with it it falls away then that is an old rule and then it is unnecessary.

The hon. member will remember that we passed the Evidence Act in 1962 (No. 14) with reference to criminal matters. If the hon. member will look at Section 6 of that Act he will find this—

1. (a) prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which would apart from the provisions of this Act be admissible; or
2. (b) render admissible documentary evidence as to any declaration relating to a matter of pedigree, if that declaration would not have been admissible as evidence if this Act had not been passed.

The wording is exactly the same as in this Bill. If the hon. member would look at the previous Acts he would find that this was also there. In other words, it is exactly what I have told hon. members it meant and that is to make assurance doubly sure in case something is prescribed or not prescribed in this case; it is to meet that eventuality.

I must say that if I were in the Minister’s place I too would have been very chary about disagreeing with the advice of those eminent gentlemen who say this clause is essential. In support of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), however, I would say this that I believe this clause may in the end have affects beyond what we intend. Looking at the clause carefully it did not occur to me that there might be possible difficulty. If any of the aforegoing provisions have the effect of bringing about any alteration in the law of evidence then it seems to me that this clause overrules the earlier provisions of the Bill by implication—that it preserves the existing position. This provision is all-inclusive. It provides that—

I have not, but someone may be able to discover some earlier provision that is in conflict, and it seems to me that in that event this particular provision will have the effect of over-ruling an earlier provision of this Act. I believe it would be very much a better Act if one could be sure that we are not unwittingly interfering with existing legislation we would be in a happier position if we left out a saving clause of this sort which I rather feel may have effects beyond what Parliament actually intends.

I think the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is entirely wrong. Apart from the fact that this provision has stood in the Statute Book for a very long time and that so far no problem has been experienced in this connection, we find that the clause reads as follows—

Surely it is perfectly clear to the hon. member that somebody may come along and argue that the entire Act is contained in this chapter. It is not the intention that our entire law of evidence should be contained in this chapter; that is why the door has to be left open; this clause only means what it says therefore, “nothing in this part shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence which would apart from the provisions of this part be admissible.” In other words, nobody can come along and argue that this, or the other part of the law, as far as the law of evidence is concerned, no longer applies because it is not contained in this particular chapter.

Only Part VI.

Yes, it is only this chapter. It is in order to prevent the possibility that some shrewd person may come along and advance that argument in court that we are making doubly sure by saying that in spite of the provisions of this chapter the evidence will still be admissible or still be inadmissible, as the case may be.

The difference of course is, as the hon. Minister has indicated, that in the Evidence Act, the section the hon. the Minister referred to—Section 6—refers to the whole Act. It says “nothing in this Act shall prejudice …” Here we say “nothing in this part”, that is to say Part VI, dealing with documentary evidence, a miscellaneous provision.

This part deals with documentary evidence.

Yes, but why if one wants to make doubly sure, why if this is necessary at all—and it was considered necessary in 1962, as far as the Evidence Act is concerned—why does not this apply to the whole Act?

You have Clause 41.

No. 41 covers a different matter altogether. Clause 41 says that “the law of evidence which was in force on 30 May 1961 shall apply in any case not provided for by this Act or any other law”. That surely in any event is the position. But doesn’t Clause 41 give strength to the argument that this is only making a provision for one particular part?

No.

If this is necessary just for the miscellaneous provisions of the documentary evidence part of this Act (Part VI of this Bill), then why was it necessary in the Evidence Act for the whole of the evidence? Why is it not necessary in this Bill to say “for the whole of the Bill”? Surely if one is going to make doubly sure, then one wants to be doubly sure about the whole Act.

The reason is perfectly clear. The Evidence Act of 1962 only deals with documentary evidence; it only deals with the things which are mentioned in Part VI. The wording here has been taken over word for word from the Act of 1962. The words “this Act” could be used in the Act of 1962 because the entire Act deals with documentary evidence, but one cannot say it in this Bill because it consists of various parts, and only Part VI deals with documentary evidence. That is why one can not refer in this Bill to “this Act” because this Bill deals with many more things than the matter dealt with in the Evidence Act of 1962. This part, however, has been taken over word for word from the Evidence Act of 1962 in so far as criminal cases are concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 41,

I am sorry that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is not here because I am sure he would have supported what I want to say about this clause. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not possible instead of having a provision such as this, for the hon. Minister’s department, through the aegis of the Law Revision Committee, to attempt to get this particular aspect of our law once and for all into some form which the practitioner can easily get. I feel somehow that there are certain primary rules of evidence which we are putting in this Bill, for example, a clause which we have already dealt with “that no evidence as to any fact, matter or thing which is irrelevant or immaterial, cannot prove or disprove any point of fact … shall be admissible as such” That is something which every student of law learns in his very first year, something he never forgets. It is something that is always there. But here is a field of law relating to competency, compellability, examination and cross-examination of witnesses which was in force in respect of civil proceedings on 30 May 1961 and it says “it shall apply in any case not provided for by this Act or any other law”. Now I will tell you why I am asking the hon. Minister to consider this. The law which was in force in 1961, is the law of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Great Britain, a law developed over the centuries and so far as we are concerned the common law of Great Britain, and a very fine system of evidence it is. But, Sir, if the practitioner to-day wants to know what the law is, then he does not stop at 1961, he does not go to the Law Reports of 1961, or the books that were published or the text books which were published up to that day, “and the law is stated to be the law as it was on 30 May 1961”. That does not tell him what the law is. Because there might be a judgment of the English courts subsequent to that time, which he has to look at. He dare not merely look at Phipson, or any of the other books on evidence and say “that is what the law was then”. He still has to look at the English Law Reports to see whether there was any decision of those courts relevant to that particular point. Because the Judges of England, like the Judges of South Africa state what the law has always been. It is not their function to make new laws. So this looks very nice where it says: “The law is to be what the law was in May 1961”. The question is what the law is in 1965. What the law is in 1965 is what the law was in 1961, unless there is a House of Lords’ decision which repeals or does something with one of the principles which was then in effect. In fact the House of Lords is quite entitled to say, although it will not do so very lightly (it does not do it as easily as the Privy Council) to say that its former decision was wrong. So this apparently simple provision which apparently makes the law clear and tells us exactly where we stand and freezes our law as it were, is not such a simple provision. In fact, it does nothing of the sort, it does not alter the position at all. But it is increasingly difficult, and it must be very difficult for the gentleman that the hon. member for Heilbron referred to, namely, an attorney in Prieska, or in any other small town, to get hold of all the latest English law reports. It is quite true that the All England Reports, for example, have a fairly comprehensive cover, but they do not cover all the cases, and one cannot expect the practitioners in South Africa, a practitioner in a country district, to have all these reports. He will probably have the South African law reports, which is fairly basic material, but he is going to be required from now on until such time as we do something about it, for an appreciation of even the basic principles, to have a library consisting not only of the old English Law Reports, the Appeal Court reports, the Admiralty Court Reports, etc., at his disposal somewhere to be competent to state what the law is, to know what the law is. I will go further, even more important perhaps as that is the fact that a magistrate sitting in these areas is at a great disadvantage without some sort of codification, something to which he can turn and say “that is the law”, and then from that day on he would not look at the English decisions except for guidance, but they would no longer be binding on him anymore in relation to that particular matter. I am thinking particularly of magistrates in the country areas who do not have the sort of libraries available we may have in the bigger towns: he does not have the benefit of being able to discuss the matter with many colleagues, the benefit of the Bar or Side-Bar, or a large Side-Bar Association with whom to discuss the problem, or the benefit of Judges in the vicinity to whom the problem can be put. These people often could be in a position that they give a decision which can be upset. That would not do the man’s morale any good, and I do not know what it would do to his merits or demerits. But in any case that would not happen if we could have this simple clause in the form of a Bill, one nice consolidating Bill. I ask the hon. Minister to recommend to the Law Revision Committee to undertake this task.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is making another plea, in a disguised manner, for codification, which the Minister has already said will not be advisable or wise at the moment, and for which this is not the opportunity to plead either. But I want to tell the hon. member that he need not be so concerned about the matter, for a very simple reason. We are getting an Act here, and within a short time we will have very good guidance for the legal practitioners, much better than ever before. In addition, we will also get a superstructure as the result of the decisions of the courts in regard to various questions which may arise.

Just take Clause 1, which was mentioned by the hon. member, viz. in regard to the admissibility of evidence. We have a few words here now, but that does not constitute the whole of the law as to what is admissible and what is not. We still have a whole superstructure, and for the Minister now to pass an Act to include all of that is simply impossible and cannot be done however hard one tries. What will now happen in practice is this: The magistrates who do not have a library available will act in the light of the information available to them. They will look at the decisions which give an explanation, e.g. of a phrase like “the admissibility of evidence”. It may be that they give the correct interpretation to it, but it may also be that they do not. But there is always a large supply of legal decisions, of decisions by our own courts, and that is part of our heritage. We just cannot do otherwise.

If the Minister should try to codify it, he simply will not succeed, for the simple reason that the day after codification that which he has codified will again be subjected to interpretation, and the Utopian position the hon. member for Durban (North) envisages will simply never be achieved. It may be that a month later we get other decisions giving a different interpretation. That is inherent in a good system. He therefore imagines that we will achieve a Utopian position if the Minister codifies the matter, but he lives in a fool’s paradise if he thinks that that Utopia will be achieved. And it does not matter whether he is now talking about the first section dealing with the admissibility of evidence, or whether he speaks about the second chapter, the third volume, the sufficiency of proof—there is already a large superstructure. All that Clause 41 says is that where there is absolutely no answer to be found in South Africa to a legal problem in our law of evidence, we may have a look at what happens in the Supreme Court in England, and we may find it there. But there is no guarantee that we will find it there; then we do it ourselves.

I foresee the possibility that we will not even go so far but that we ourselves will say what we accept. Because remember, this is also part of our law, the other rule that we should not necessarily follow the English decisions, but that we can also give our own interpretation. That is also part of our law. Therefore this is a very important part of our law. Therefore even if one looks overseas to see whether there is a case on all fours which precisely fits the circumstances, then one can say: “Here we have an authoritative interpretation of certain concept,” and then one is very happy, but one is not yet certain whether the Appeal Court will accept it. The problem which the hon. member wants to solve is that the ordinary man, the ordinary magistrate, the ordinary practitioner, should now have the wisdom which is acquired only after long experience. And that just cannot be done, and the Minister of Justice can give nobody that experience by codifying the law.

I am very happy with this clause. I think it gives the scope necessary for the development of the South African law, something we need. It gives us the necessary opportunity to erect our own superstructure, but it also gives us the opportunity to be guided by people who have struggled with this problem much longer (I am referring now to the law of evidence: in other respects we have had a longer development than they have had). Because the English law has been used so much and has been indexed so well one has little trouble in gaining access to a great treasury where others perhaps also encountered the same problems and found solutions. Then we can ask the question: Does that solution suit us or not? That is also part of our law. We are not restricting that choice, nor are we closing the door so that we cannot go abroad, and it gives us the necessary scope. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with that so that we can now dispose of that matter.

This argument brings us back again to the question of codification and I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not going to take it upon myself to force condification unless the Law Revision Committee which is representative of the whole profession, makes out a case for codification, and then it still depends on whether we have the staff available to undertake this task, because the hon. member will realize that it does not take a year and a day to codify our common law, whether it be our Roman-Dutch Law on the one hand or, as in this case, the English law of evidence.

But to come to this specific clause, the hon. member realizes that even with codification, it will still be necessary to have this clause as well because no person who codifies our law will be able to say for a single moment that he has codified our entire law as such. Humanly sneaking it is impossible. Even if our law should be codified, therefore, we would still have to say: “Save for those things which have now been codified or laid down the law in respect of anything which has been omitted will be as it was as at a specified date.” We would have to say that in any case whether our law has been codified or not. But I think we understand each other perfectly clearly; it cannot be done in this Bill; it would take many years to codify, and the legal profession is hopelessly divided on the question or the desirability or otherwise of codification. Until such time as we have clarity on that issue, we simply cannot proceed with codification. But I also want to point out to the hon. member that we also inserted this provision in the Criminal Procedure Act which was passed the year before last, Act No. 62 of 1963, and I can tell the hon. member that when we discussed this specific provision with the Chief Justice, he accepted the statement and welcomed this clause as it stands here. I am afraid I can take the matter no further.

I am glad to hear that this was put to the Chief Justice and that the Chief Justice, who obviously would have consulted his brothers, liked it. But I do not want the hon. Minister to leave this Committee with the thought that J have been pressing for codification of our law. I have not. I do not like this Bill. I do not think there has ever been any dispute as to what the law of evidence is, or that there has ever been any difficulty as to what it is. What I do not like about it is that: The law of evidence is what the law of evidence has always been; the law of evidence is found in our statutes where necessary, especially the criminal statute, the law on criminal procedure …

And this Bill does not alter it in the least.

Precisely, and so there is no difficulty about it. Therefore I find that it is unnecessary. Now you look at your text book. The practitioner in a country district relies on Phipson, and if he is in court he has to rely on something like Phipson or May, or Gardiner or O’Dowd—new books in regard to the South African law of evidence—that is what he relies on, and this is the law: What the law has always been, based on certain principles. Why I do not like this, and why I have made this suggestion, is that you now have to look at this Bill and say: Well, I know what the law was. but now I must look at this and see whether this Civil Proceedings Evidence Act changes the law in any respect. If it does not change it, then it is what it always used to be. And there may or may not be a conflict. In any case, you are introducing an element of danger. Unless you can say “this is our law”, then leave the law as it is. It has been defined, and there has been no trouble. I would not like the Minister to codify the whole of our law. I do not think it is possible to do so. and I do not think it is possible to cope with every circumstance that may arise. So far a statement of basic principles is concerned, I find nothing objectionable in stating those principles, but I do think that this whole Bill may

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I cannot understand the hon. member at all now. The hon. member and I are not talking the same language, and if we are not talking the same language then it is because the hon. member has not looked at the Schedule. The hon. member says that we might just as well not have had this Bill, but I made it perfectly clear to the hon. member when I introduced the Bill that our law of evidence, as far as the statutory provisions are concerned, is contained in 110 Acts, some of which date back to 1830. All we are doing here is this: Our common law still remains precisely the same. All we are doing in Clause 41 is to say that the date shall be 30 May 1961 the day before the establishment of the Republic. We are now going to make available in one Act all the old laws which date as far back as 1930 and which constitute our statutory law of evidence.

Moreover, we are translating it into Afrikaans and modernizing it. How then can the hon. member say that the whole thing is worthless? How can he say that we would have been better off without it? After all, how many persons have the Cape Ordinance of 1830; how many persons have Ordinance 14 of 1946 or the Ordinance of 1861? We have translated these Ordinances and we are now incorporating them in this Bill which is before Parliament. As far as the statutory law is concerned, we are not inserting new provisions here; this is a translation of the old Statutes that we are now making available in this accessible form to Parliament and to the legal practitioners. I am sorry, but I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument in this connection at all.

I would just like to answer the hon. Minister. The hon. Minister referred to what he said at the second reading, but may I remind the hon. Minister I also spoke at the second reading and that so far as this Bill consolidates all the old laws and makes these very old statutes available I accept it.

But that is exactly what we are doing.

I agree with the hon. Minister and to that extent of course it is a good thing. But my point remains that there are nevertheless difficulties which can arise from statutory statements of the law, the fossilization …

But we are trying to do away with that.

The law can do all sorts of things. The law can state the law. Judges can state the law, and they use terms, use language which can later be moulded into other languages. If the Legislature uses language that is the end of it. But only practice will tell whether this is going to work or not. I do not wish to pursue this matter. The hon. Minister states his point of view and he has a reasonable point of view, and he has the backing of the Law Revision Committee and of the Chief Justice. I bow to that knowledge and I hope it will work, and I hope that the hon. Minister will, when there are signs that it is not working, not hesitate to come back to this House, or will go to his Law Revision Committee and suggest to them that may be there is something which needs clarification and that something may be said for general clarification and more codification.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

When the debate was interrupted I was replying to the last argument advanced by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). To complete my argument, it is only necessary for me to point out to the hon. member for Pinetown that in South Africa we have never had the system of “public trustees” and that we are not establishing such a system under this Bill either. It is unknown to us and we have no intention of introducing it by means of this Bill. There is another thing of which the hon. member for Pinetown must not lose sight and that is that not every person who becomes insolvent necessarily becomes criminally insolvent. If we adopt the attitude that every person who becomes insolvent is criminally insolvent, or that insolvency as such is a criminal offence, then naturally and inevitably the police must intervene as soon as it is announced that a person has become insolvent. Although many people become insolvent there are many who become insolvent without having committed any crime and as a result of circumstances over which they had no control. We are now faced with the difficulty of deciding how far the trustee has to go and how far the police have to go. The hon. member made certain suggestions but those things cannot be laid down by law. We can only hope that in practice we will see eye to eye, that is to say, the police and the trustee, and that in practice they will both act reasonably. The police tell me—and they are good people with years of experience in this specific branch—that their problem is this: A trustee tells them that he believes that irregularities have taken place, but the fact that the trustee believes that, does not give the police the right to intervene; the trustee has to go further and say to the police, “I believe that in this, that or the other respect, there has been some irregularity.” The difficulty of the police is that they can only act where somebody lays a charge. If the trustee cannot lay a well-founded charge or at least make out a prima facie case, then the hands of the police are tied. That being the position I am afraid that we can take this matter no further. But we do ask from time to time, when these complaints are made, when the people say that the police did not act timeously or that they refuse to act. that specific examples be given to us, and we have seldom or ever received complaints supported by specific examples.

That then is my reply to this debate as well as to the last point raised by the hon. member for Pinetown.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I beg to move—

Sir, I move this motion because this is a very important Bill. It is most desirable that we should try to meet the views, if we can, of persons who have great experience and are vitally interested in this measure. Our whole object is to make it a better Bill and to have a thorough examination of certain of its provisions. I have deliberately provided for a very early return date, in the hope that the hon. the Minister will agree that it will be possible for expert evidence to be taken by a Committee of this House. That could only lead to putting a better measure on the Statute Book. It will delay only for a very short period, the passage of this Bill, a measure which is generally welcomed not only in this House but also outside. There are provisions which it is felt are not in the best public interest, and we feel that those measures should be very carefully examined, and I therefore move accordingly.

Mr.

Speaker, I am not aware, of course, of any specific clause to which the hon. member refers. I am rather in the dark therefore in connection with the objections raised by the hon. member. I feel that this is a matter which cannot be decided upon here and now, but that the hon. member should be offered an opportunity to raise this matter again and I therefore move—

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

In the first place I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks for the kind words addressed to me by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) in connection with my service as Chairman of the Select Committee that examined this Bill. At the risk of the Opposition, which is so strongly allergic to any expression of thanks to the Minister or anyone else, taking it amiss of me, I wish to express my thanks to the hon. members of the Opposition who co-operated so sincerely with members on this side in connection with this matter. Finally, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister, on behalf of the Select Committee and the Commission, for having in such large measure accepted the recommendations of this Commission in this legislation.

At the same time I wish to express my particular appreciation to those few hon. members who directed their attention more particularly to the chapter on dust in this Bill. I wish to refer to paragraph 21 of the Commission’s Report, in which it expresses its special thanks to Dr. J. C. Jurgens, Dr. E. L. Fisher and Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk, who jointly and severally applied themselves to this aspect of the problem, i.e. the proposals in regard to dust control, and who also submitted certain proposals to the Commission for its consideration. I should like to repeat and confirm my thanks in the open House as well.

I do not wish to repeat the contents of the Bill, which have been summarized so well by the hon. the Minister, but I wish to confine myself to four matters in connection with this legislation. In the first place I wish to refer to the functions of the National Advisory Committee and the Chief Officer appointed under this law; in the second place I am going to make certain references to dust control; in the third place I wish to refer to the correlation between lung cancer and atmospheric pollution, which has also been referred to by the hon. the Minister, and finally I wish to refer to certain special aspects of the problem that are recommended by the Commission for future consideration.

As regards the first matter, that of the National Advisory Committee, I once again wish to place on record my opinion that the success of this law depends upon which persons will be appointed to the National Advisory Committee, upon the extent to which scientific efficiency and a practical approach will be the standard adopted by this Committee. upon the extent to which the Minister will allow himself to be guided by this Committee, and upon the multiple powers conferred upon the Minister in this law. It is not without reason that the qualifications that the members of the National Advisory Committee should possess have not been laid down in this law, for the Select Committee came up against the claims of a large number of interest groups that all wanted representation on this Committee. Therefore, although no specific qualifications have been laid down for members, and although no specific bodies that should be represented have been designated, I wish to confirm the view that it would be highly desirable if the Minister would, as far as the appointment of the members of the Committee is concerned, allow himself to be led by scientific efficiency or rather the possession of scientific qualifications on the one hand, and by practical experience in industry or of the problems on the other hand. I have already stated on another occasion that the fact that any particular person, as an industrialist, has an interest in the application of this law should not debar him from appointment. The fact that a person may, as a high official of the Railways, have an interest in the application of this law should not debar him from appointment, nor should the fact that a person, as a member of the Chamber of Mines or as a high official of one of the mines, has an interest in the application of this law debar him from appointment. Indeed, the very fact that people have a practical interest in the application of this law and will play an active part in carrying out this law should serve as a recommendation for their appointment.

Then we come to the Chief Officer. He will of course exercise enormous influence in directing the application of this law; the main influence as regards the future pattern of application of this law will emanate from him, more so than from the National Committee. Here I wish to recall that the Commission recommended that the Chief Officer should be an official standing outside the Public Service, in view of the special experience and qualifications that he would be required to possess, and in view of the salary we hoped to be able to obtain for this post. But we appreciate the problems that are caused by the fact that the administration of this law has to be incorporated in our Public Service structure, and that at this stage it would probably be too revolutionary a step to entrust the administration of certain laws to an authority other than the Public Service, and therefore, although with some measure of regret, I accept the decision of the Minister that the Chief Officer shall be a member of the Public Service. However, I do not wish to let this opportunity pass without once again issuing the warning that the design of Public Service as conceived in 1910, a design that became part of the old Union of South Africa, is no longer a suitable and effective form of administration for the application of all the modern legislation of the Republic of South Africa, and that the entire administrative pattern in South Africa should be revised, and this law would be an excellent example of a law that should be administered by a chief officer who is not subject to all the restrictions associated with Public Service appointments. I just wish to point out this one very practical aspect. Here we have to have a highly qualified scientific official, someone who will have an almost judicial discretion as regards the application of the law. The type of man we have to find will not have been in the service of the State before, for up to now the State has not concerned itself with the whole problem of atmospheric pollution. He will probably be an outsider, and a man possessing such excellent academic and practical qualifications is unlikely to be a man in his thirties; he is more likely to be a man in his fifties. Consequently he will have to sacrifice pension rights in coming over to the Public Service, and in the Public Service he will only qualify for an insignificant pension. I am therefore of the opinion that it would be very difficult to find the right man within the framework of the Public Service concept, whereas one would quite possibly find the right man outside the framework of the Public Service concept. In any case, we feel that we can confidently leave this problem to the hon. the Minister, and we hope that he, who is an undoubted enthusiast as far as this law is concerned, and who has esteem and respect for the scientific leadership we want to see, will exert the necessary influence with the Public Service Commission to have a suitable man appointed.

Now I wish to make a few references to dust control. This is the first legislation I know of in the Western World, and probably in the whole of the world, in terms of which dust control is introduced, and we trust that these experimental provisions will be applied with great circumspection and care by the hon. the Minister, as, indeed, is undoubtedly his intention. Then I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Chamber of Mines on and to thank them for the work they have already done in connection with dust control in anticipation of this law. In 1962, when the Committee deliberated upon these matters, the Chamber of Mines were able to issue a table, according to which there were 5.100 acres of mine-dumps in the Republic that were still bare of any vegetation. A little more than 1,000 acres, however, were fully covered by plants, and practically 1,300 acres were partly covered. The progress that had already been made at that stage has been continued apace during the past three years, and the Chamber of Mines and the constituent mines have in many respects achieved the necessary break-through to develop the methods required to cover the mine-dumps with vegetation, to such an extent that we have the pleasure of seeing published in one of the latest issues of S.A. Digest, the issue of 18 December 1964, a photograph of an undulating grassland on the Rand mine-dumps. The caption reads—

I do not wish to continue with the quotation, but I wish to make use of this opportunity to express the thanks of this House to the Chamber of Mines for the good work that has been done, and also to thank the Minister and the Government for the fact that legislation is being passed in order to be able to make it compulsory for this good work to be undertaken, if necessary; for, as we all know, since the Deluge there is no better encouragement for good works to be done than the power to make the performance of such works a requirement, and while I do not doubt the good intentions of the Chamber of Mines, it cannot be denied that the prospect of this law being passed was the spur for them to translate good intentions into dramatic good works. I also trust that the research work in his connection will be successfully continued. Up to now the break-through achieved by the mining industry was more particularly in respect of the treatment of soil, and in respect of finding the right degree of acidity or alkalinity of the soil. The problem of covering the mine-dumps with vegetation was more closely related to that field, and not so much to the matter of water provision. In the course of 1964 a report was published on the progress made by British scientists, and I quote from the Star of 7 January 1964—

I do hope, though, that both the National Committee and the mining industry will not just see nothing but, and will not be simply content with, the biological and agronomical progress that has been made, but that a very great deal of research will also be carried out into the other technological possibilities in connection with controlling mine-dust, as there are still possibilities in this field as well.

I now want to proceed to the next aspect I want to mention, viz. the correlation between lung cancer and air pollution. I do not want to overreach myself in this regard. The medical members will have something to say about this matter, but it has been established beyond any doubt that the active factor causing lung cancer is a combustion product of diesel oil. We have found that in Germany in particular a great deal of research was carried out in connection with the causing of lung cancer through air pollution, at the same time as in America it was sought to establish the smoking of cigarettes as the cause. I quote from a translation of the Müncher Merkur in regard to the findings of the scientific authorities of the North Rhine-Westphalia State, under the direction of Professor Dr. Reinhard Poche, the Medical Academy of Düsseldorf, as follows—

These findings in Germany were so positive that at the end of 1964 they took the radical step of issuing a pollution warning in North-West Germany whenever the air pollution level became too high—

The decision to stop motor traffic entirely whenever a critical phase of air pollution was reached was a very radical one; and in the past weeks reports have reached South Africa that these radical provisions have in fact been applied for the first time, and that motor traffic in the mighty, pulsating Rhineland was stopped for four hours in order to reduce the air pollution level.

Now, I am sorry that the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) has not been present and consequently has had to forgo what I hope would have been to him the pleasure of hearing me trying to break a lance for his tobacco farmers. But I am absolutely convinced that in our country the medical evidence and the whole of our experience decisively indicates that the connection between lung cancer and air pollution, and particularly between lung cancer and motor and diesel exhaust fumes, has been proved much more clearly than the connection between lung cancer and cigarette smoke, and I hope that our tobacco farmers will for many years have a prosperous future in their industry.

The last aspect I wish to touch upon relates to certain special aspects of the problem of air pollution that have been left for the future. In this regard I just want to make one quotation in order to give hon. members some idea of the extent of air pollution. I quote from the South African Panorama of last year, as follows (translation)—

This does not refer to the fact that they still have the largest number of United Party members of any city in South Africa. [Laughter.]—

Just imagine, Sir, one ton of carbon particles per square mile! That is an enormous quantity, and therefore it is not a hypothetical or theoretical law that is being passed here. Air pollution both by gases and by smoke products is a very topical matter.

The matters brought to the notice of the Government by the Commission with a view to the future are the following. In the first place there is the appointment of the National Advisory Committee, to which I have already referred. Then I come to the second item, which I again want to read in its entirety, so that it may be firmly imprinted upon the Minister’s memory and so that it may be remembered even in this House, namely—

1. (a) that as soon as effective and practical appliances are developed and available for improving the quality of vapours from exhaust pipes, the installation of such appliances should be made compulsory;
2. (b) that the National Air Pollution Advisory Committee should constantly bear this aspect of air pollution in mind.

I am convinced that if the large motor industry know that its sales depended upon their developing some purifying appliance or other to eliminate these noxious gases at the exhaust pipe, they would do so; but as long as the motor industry knows that its sales are sure in spite of such an appliance not being developed, they will not pay much attention to research in this connection. For that reason pressure should be exerted on them by Government authorities.

The next point is a very important one, and possibly it may be raised at a later stage by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) in view of the fact that it is a local problem there, and it is, namely, that the attention of the National Committee should be drawn to the serious dangers attaching to air pollution by asbestos, not only for persons working in mines and industries, but also for those in the vicinity. To a certain extent this asbestos danger is covered by the chapter on dust control, but hon. members probably know, although we in South Africa are too unaware of it, that the fine dust deriving from asbestos, the asbestos, powder, is the most poisonous material that can be inhaled. Any person who inhales some of this dust is virtually doomed to suffer the miseries of lung cancer, and the South African records seem to indicate that practically all persons who developed lung cancer in South Africa got it from asbestos dust, and not from smoking tobacco. For that reason this recommendation is a very important one, viz. that the National Committee should direct its attention to the dangers attaching to the asbestos industry, and that the research in connection with the extent of this problem and the best means of controlling this form of pollution is essential and should receive priority. I trust that as far as this particular aspect is concerned the Minister, in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Mines, will see to it as soon as possible that effective procedures are developed for controlling this danger, and that these are then applied by law. In connection with this aspect I just want to point out that in the North-Western Cape several cases, recorded cases, have occurred of private individuals who were not engaged in the asbestos industry in any way, apart from the fact that they stayed nearby, being stricken by this horrible asbestos dust contamination and dying as a result thereof without any right whatsoever to compensation in terms of any industrial legislation. The question arises of whether consideration should not be given to ways and means of making our industrial compensation legislation applicable to persons who suffer as a result of this contamination by asbestos dust.

Sir, I think it is possible that in actual fact I have already said more than was necessary, for it is easy to become over-enthusiastic in regard to a specific matter such as this. I wish to say that I trust that this law will not be applied in a way that will impose unnecessary and heavy burdens upon our civilian and industrial population; that we shall apply it only where necessary; and that we shall apply it in a reasonable way and for the welfare of the country; but I wish to state my conviction that it is now the right time to adopt this measure and that the sensible application of this measure can be of great benefit as regards the health and welfare and also the industrial development of South Africa in that fine industries will be made possible by this Act where they would not have been possible without this Act.

I want to respond immediately to the speech made by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) by also expressing my thanks for the manner in which both the Select Committee and the commission conducted their work. During the course of my speech I am not going to go into any great detail concerning the actual Bill which is before the House. I believe that a very good report has been put before this House on the deliberations of the committee, and I believe that the Bill, being based as it is, upon what I believe is the best in both the American and the British legislation, is something which we must let go along for the period and see if there are any snags which arise from its application under local conditions in this country. I, Sir, am going to welcome this measure, but before I go on to say what I have to say, I would like to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. member for Kempton Park. First of all, I think I owe some explanation to both the hon. member, to the Minister and to hon. members of the Committee on the question of my reservation, on the question of dust control. Originally, and with the old definition of “dust” I was not at one with the rest of the members of the commission on the inclusion of the Chapter on dust. In view of the fact that we were able to get a new and, I believe, better definition of the term “dust” and in view of the evidence which was given to us by the mining people themselves and by our mining engineers, I now believe that we were wise indeed to include this chapter on dust in this Act. I believe that it puts the control of pollution of the air from all causes into one Bill. The hon. the Minister will remember that during the course of these proceedings I was so keen on achieving that, that I even wanted methods to be investigated of incorporating the question of water pollution in this one pollution measure. However, I mention that just to clarify my point of view. I now welcome the inclusion of this chapter on dust, because not only does it deal with the control of dust from mine dumps, but it has brought in certain other industrial dusts, and here I agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park that the worst of these is probably asbestos dust. I think the mining people themselves have given us such a good lead and such a good start in the control of dust emanating from mine dumps, that with the further provisions we have made in this legislation, there should be no difficulty at all in dealing satisfactorily with that problem, although it will obviously take some time yet before the problem is well on the way to being satisfactorily dealt with.

The next point raised by the hon. member on which I would like to say a few words is the question of the National Advisory Board but more especially the question of the chief officer. Sir, the whole of this Bill is designed to work upon co-operation and advice. It is not being introduced in the spirit of making criminals out of our industrialists, and people who create smoke, dust and the like. The whole thing is based upon co-operation, advice and research, and I believe that if our National Advisory Board is not properly constituted and if the chief officer is not the right man, this Bill will not work, so I join the hon. member for Kempton Park in his plea that perhaps in this case especially, more than any other, special consideration should be given to the appointment of the chief officer. The chief officer is going to be the king pin in the working and the success of this whole measure when it becomes an Act. If he is not free to work according to the letter and the spirit of the Act he will be so tied that it would be better not to start. I am therefore, as I have already indicated, going to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Kempton Park that exceptions should be made in the case of this officer when it comes to laying down the conditions governing his appointment.

I think those are the main points that I wanted to deal with in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park. Sir, like most members on this side of the House who have spoken up to now I want to express my sorrow, as it were, with regard to the delay in introducing this Bill, and when I say that I do not mean just the delay from 1961; I believe that we should have had this Bill on the Statute Book many years ago. If you read the report you will find that we had zealous State officials who started of their own accord in the immediate postwar years to do research into this very subject which is before us now. I think those zealous men need our thanks and congratulations for the work they did at that time. They started to look into the problems which were being experienced in other countries where they had served our Government, and I believe that it was as a result of that that this Bill was born: I believe that that is really where the thinking started. I think that those men are particularly entitled to our thanks and to our gratitude. Although I believe that we are a bit late in bringing in this Bill and although we could have had it in operation for a sufficiently long time for us to have seen results from it by this time, nevertheless we are in that fortunate position in South Africa where many of the European and Western nations and I think nations all over the world would welcome the opportunity of being able to start with the control of the pollution of their air at the stage where we are starting. Whilst there has been delay I still think that we are fortunate and I believe that if the implementation of this Bill is applied zealously we may very well catch up with the problem which faces us here already but which fortunately for us has not become very bad yet. I think too that the particular locality I represent, that is to say, Durban, has had a lot to do with the introduction of this measure because as you probably know, Sir, we have a set of conditions in Durban which are particularly peculiar to that area. I refer to the phenomenon of temperature inversion where a ceiling is created above which polluted air cannot rise. I think Durban took the lead in introducing local legislation, in teaching our industrialists to control the amount of smoke they emit and, in various other ways, by means of co-operation, to try to lessen this problem. It is interesting, however, that in spite of that and in spite of the fact that both the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Kempton Park quoted Durban as the place with the highest incidence of lung cancer, we have already reached the stage where other place likes like Pretoria are threatened. May I quote what appeared in the Sunday Tribune of 15 March 1964—

This report goes on to explain what they have done and what quantities they have found there. The report then goes on to say—and this is rather interesting—

Sir, that is a fantastic figure. Whilst the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Kempton Park have indicated that they believe that air pollution is a greater cause of lung cancer than cigarette smoking, I personally am not sure from the results we have seen, but nevertheless there is no question at all that if we do not do something to control the pollution of our air, we too are going to put ourselves in the same position which America is reaching where an expert on this subject can come along and say that probably 40 per cent of all deaths will be caused 20 years hence by lung cancer. I think that statement alone and other statements by the hon. the Minister prove that this legislation is necessary.

Sir. I said that Durban perhaps had a great influence on the introduction of this legislation. If you cast your mind back to 1953, Sir, you will recall that there was a famous day in that year when at 3 o’clock in the afternoon a special emergency meeting was called at the Docks and people had to use the headlights of their motor cars to get there because of the smog which hung over that city. That has been repeated many times since then, although it has not perhaps been publicized. Nevertheless the problem in Durban is more apparent, I think, than it is throughout the rest of this country, because of these peculiar conditions in Durban. I think that Durban is as good a point as any in which to start the implementation of this legislation. After all. a start will have to be made somewhere. I do not think that this legislation can be implemented throughout the Republic at the same time; there will have to be a gradual application in the other areas once a start has been made at one point. It is because I believe that the greatest threat is in the area of Durban that I think the hon. the Minister should seriously consider Durban as a starting point.

I said that I was a little concerned with the delay in introducing this measure and I also said that I thought those civil servants and officials who introduced this legislation or who were responsible for its introduction are to be congratulated too, because already in 1958 when I came to this House a draft Bill had actually been circulated. I came across a copy of it in a bottom drawer and it is rather interesting to see the lengths to which that Bill went. I mention this because it is a subject which the hon. the Minister will have to consider. That draft Bill, in addition to all the things that we are dealing with now, with the exception of dust control, went to quite great lengths; it provided for the control of noise, and the things cited were buzz bikes, barking dogs and the like, which apparently are becoming recognized by health authorities throughout the world as things which affect amenities and the production capacity of our people whose state of health is affected if they cannot get a good night’s rest. I mention this just in passing to show you some of the things which are not incorporated here and which were incorporated in the draft Bill which I saw when I came here in 1958.

Sir, on the necessity for this measure, I believe that this Bill is very necessary. At the moment we labour under the provisions of the old 1919 Public Health Act, a most peculiar Act under which to deal with it. As the hon. the Minister will know we had the first refinery in the Republic in the Durban area, and we had many other problems first, including whaling stations. We have therefore had a lot of experience with the pollution of our air from many and varied sources. We found in trying to deal with these under the existing legislation that first of all the complainant not only had to prove his charge but he also had to supply the cure. That provision still exists in the old 1919 legislation. Sir, you can imagine the layman trying to offer a remedy for a complaint which is caused by perhaps a very complicated chemical process. The thing is just absurd. In addition to that the penalty for continuing, even after having been found guilty, was so small and so petty that obviously it paid industries to continue to commit the offence, because the total fine on any one charge amounted to something like R40 or R50. It paid industrialists therefore to keep on committing the offence and to pay the R50; that was very much cheaper than remedying the fault.

I want to comment on one or two other points. The one is the fact that we have not dealt in this Bill to any extent with the gasses emitted by motor-cars. We have gone to quite great lengths to make provision for controlling the smoke and fumes emitted by diesel engines, but we have really not got down to the problem of dealing with the gases which are exhausted into the air by the ordinary petrol engine. Sir, I think there are some reasons for that. At the moment there is no satisfactory method of dealing with it, but I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister—he probably knows this already—that in America something like R5,000,000 has been spent on research into a means of minimizing these gases. I would like the hon. the Minister seriously to consider, at a later stage, when these attachments, if you like to call them that, are more readily available at an economic price, the question of extending the operation of the clause so as to ensure that the gases from motor-cars are adequately coped with. Diesel exhaust fumes are in fact not half so dangerous and do not poison our atmosphere as the emission of fumes from petrol-driven motor-cars, and obviously there are so many more petrol-driven engines within the confines of a city than diesel engines that obviously it becomes a bigger problem.

What about the smoking of cigars?

The last point I want to deal with is the question of the control of air pollution by the Railways. To us in coastal areas this is probably more important than any other aspect of this Bill. Sir, we came to the conclusion in making our recommendation that the State could not prosecute the State, so there was very little that we could do about the Railways, but we did include a special provision to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Railways should lay on the Table of this House all the complaints received by him together with a statement as to what he had done to remedy the position. In windy places up on the Highveld the smoke from engines is probably not quite so annoying and probably does not cause so much pollution as it does in the coastal area. Whilst we could only make the provision that we did in the Bill, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he cannot perhaps join all the people concerned in asking the Minister of Railways if he cannot arrange for the installation of electrical shunting in areas such as Durban and in other coastal towns where this phenomenon of temperature inversion take place. I personally believe—this is my own estimate and I think I am underestimating it—that at least half the smog in the city of Durban would disappear if electrical shunting were introduced in the Durban area as opposed to the present position. I believe that my estimate of 50 per cent is an underestimate. In the same way that industrialists by co-operation, by taking the advice of the chief officer and his staff and by working together with them will help to achieve the object of this Bill, I believe that the hon. the Minister of Transport will be able to do almost as much as all those people put together, especially in the Durban area, if he will cooperate in the same spirit as we are expecting the industrialists to co-operate. We have a problem which is bad enough to solve, the problem of effluents from industry and so on, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that the atmospheric pollution which is taking place in our area as a result of shunting operations is something the extent of which we will only find out if it ceases. The only way in which we can go about solving this problem is by asking the hon. the Minister together with his colleague, to take the necessary steps to make it cease. Then, I believe we will overcome something like 50 per cent of our smog problems.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) have given us a very clear exposition of the principles of this law and I shall not again go into them in detail. We are fortunate in South Africa in that this problem is to a great extent sporadic here. In the second place we are also fortunate in that industries in South Africa have from the very beginning had the opportunity of co-operating in the national struggle to overcome this problem and that the position is not as it is in other countries where industries have had to be forced by organized public opinion to co-operate in this connection and to do something to combat the problem. From the beginning they were able to co-operate in this project. It is a problem, however, which we have to take into account. The hon. member for Kempton Park has told us what the position is in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has outlined the problems they have in Durban. I have read that surveys made by the C.S.I.R. regarding atmospheric pollution in the streets of Pretoria over a period of a number of years revealed that smoke was increasing annually by more than 10 per cent while the increase in the centre of the city was 20 per cent. It is a problem which is getting worse every year. Even here in Cape Town with all the wind that blows here, with all the rain it gets and the proximity of the sea, this problem has started to rear its head. Dr. E. D. Cooper, the Cape Town City Engineer, told the committee of the City Council only last year that he was concerned about the excessive smoke which was polluting the atmosphere. He expressed concern that the cloud of smog which often hung over Cape Town could cause lung cancer. The only remark I wish to make about this is that this report of Dr. Cooper does not tally with the actions of Cape Town. I do not know what he said in his report to the City Council of Cape Town a year or two ago when the City Council decided to replace all its electric trams by diesel buses. Sir, this question of lung cancer being caused by atmospheric pollution is an interesting question. I want to read an extract from the memorandum submitted to the Commission by the Medical Faculty of the University of Stellenbosch. The Faculty says—

Atmospheric pollution, the pollution of the atmosphere by smoke and other factors, not only has a deleterious effect on the health of people it also has, like all other accounts, a financial debit side and Dr. A. Strasheim, the Director of the National Physical Research Laboratory says—

Experts reckon that the smog account South Africa has to pay annually amounts to R10,000,000. The figure is much higher in the case of England and the United States. There it is R6 to R10 per capita of the population. But these figures for South Africa, England and the United States immediately also tell us another story and that is that although we definitely have a sporadic smog problem in certain areas of South Africa it is relatively very small in comparison with the problem of other industrial countries. The problem of Johannesburg, for example, is very small in comparison with that of Los Angeles with its 2,500,0 motor vehicles. Because of that, because our problem is relatively very small as compared with that of other industrial countries, I wish to draw the attention of the House very pertinently to page 4, paragraph 4, of the commission’s report where they say this—

Our problem is still relatively minor and sporadic and we can tackle this problem with a great measure of success with the co-operation and awareness of the problem on the part of local authorities, industries, the mining industry and all bodies concerned; we can tackle it if we have their co-operation but we definitely cannot force them at this stage. Mr. Speaker, at this stage the problem certainly does not justify expensive State machinery to administer the Act. On the contrary if we were at this stage to establish expensive State machinery to carry out the provisions of this Act we would create a much greater problem in South Africa than the problem of atmospheric pollution we have at the moment. I say we should do what work there is to be done to combat this problem on the basis of co-ordination, on the basis of cultivating a good understanding between the authorities concerned, local authorities, the mining industry, industrialists and the Government Department.

We have every reason to believe that we shall get the necessary co-operation from these bodies. That was very clear from the evidence given before the commission, as the hon. member for Rosettenville also said. A tremendous amount has already been done in South Africa in this connection. I want to associate myself with hon. members who have already expressed their gratitude for and appreciation of what has already been done on a voluntary basis by industries, the mining industry, local authorities, the City Council of Durban, etc., to combat this problem. A tremendous amount of study and research has been done by the C.S.I.R. which has established a special atmospheric pollution research committee.

The South African Fuel Research Institute has also devoted considerable study and research to this matter. The Chamber of Mines has done a great deal in the field of research in order to eliminate dust. We had the privilege of visiting the area and it was surprising to see what has already been achieved by the Chamber of Mines in their attempts to plant shrubs and grass on old mine dumps. And that body is not the only one to have done something in this regard. Industries have already played an important part in this connection and we shall be dependent on a great measure of co-operation from industry if we wish to tackle this problem with any measure of success. I fully agree with the industrialist who said—

I maintain we have to persuade people; there has to be co-operation. And we expect to get this from those people.

I also want to put in a good word for local authorities, the City Council of Durban in particular. It was revealing to have seen what they have already done. I think the Administration will be able to learn a great deal from the Durban City Council particularly as far as the combating of smog is concerned. The hon. member for Umlazi said the Railways ought to do something in this connection. The Railways are regarded as one of the biggest sinners because of the steam locomotives they use in the big cities such as in the Durban harbour and the Cape Town harbour. The Railways are fully aware of the problem and they have shown in the past that they were anxious to do something on their part to combat the problem. We are aware of the fact that in places like Durban harbour and the Table Bay harbour the Railways have appointed special locomotive inspectors to see to it that locomotives did not emit black smoke unnecessarily. They have gone further and they have fitted their tugs with special equipment to prevent their emitting smoke unnecessarily. The Railways are thus not disinclined to make their contribution towards combating this problem.

We are tackling this problem timeously from one angle. Power is taken in this legislation to control atmospheric pollution in respect of smog, industrial gases and dust. There is also a chapter in the law which creates the machinery whereby action can be taken and protection given, when and where necessary, against vapours emitted by motor vehicles. It has been stated in general here that the gas vapours emitted by motor vehicles, particularly by diesel vehicles, were some of the chief polluters of the atmosphere. In spite of the fact that that is known I cannot see how we can put this chapter of the law in operation within the foreseeable future. Apart from that for which provision is made in this legislation there is another important contributor to atmospheric pollution which is not even touched upon in this legislation and that is the burning of coal for domestic purposes. It is generally accepted that that is one of the main contributing factors to atmospheric pollution. Sir, you need only think of the cloud of smoke which rises from the Bantu residential areas every morning and evening to appreciate how much smoke is being sent up into atmosphere. As I have said we have not even touched on that problem so far. In time to come we shall be obliged to do so. Fortunately this is a gradual process and to start with we are taking enough hay on our fork in this legislation for the moment. With further research and study by the National Advisory Board and with modern discoveries it is hoped that we shall have more means at our disposal in future to tackle this problem properly.

Very effective discoveries have already been made, discoveries that are being put into operation in other countries. We in South Africa are aware of some of those discoveries. In conclusion I want to mention just one or two of them. For instance, we have not as yet got an apparatus in South Africa whereby it can be determined when smoke is so thick that it can be regarded as extraordinary. In various European countries, however, the so-called Bosch smoke meter has been taken into use officially and traffic constables carry it around as part of their equipment. Industries which use diesel propelled vehicles use it. It is said that this smoke meter can be used to test stationary and moving vehicles carrying various loads. Photo-electric re-production of the effect of exhaust gases on the filtration slide can be read on a built-in indicator on the face of the instrument. I think the day will arrive when our traffic police, apart from the equipment they carry to-day to make our life a misery, will also have to carry this instrument.

In our own country a coal-burning stove has been designed which emits much less smoke. The stove can be very effectively controlled and is very cheap so that all the Bantu families will eventually be able to afford it. We are actually only starting and work lies ahead of us. But as we go along we shall learn more and more. We shall acquire more means at our disposal and as the Dutch say “algaande leert men” (as you go along you learn.)

I was a little disappointed in what the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) had to say. In a debate in which we all agree that this Bill is important and is accepted by all sides of the House, the hon. member has struck rather a depressing note when he suggested that we should go slowly and not build up a large machinery of officialdom in order to carry out as speedily as possible the terms of the Act.

I hold rather a different point of view. Talking like the man in the street I would say that this Bill is not only extremely welcome but it is hoped that the hon. the Minister will enable his Department to set up an administration as soon as possible to deal with the problem which has been the concern of large cities throughout the world over some years. Many cities of the world regard this as priority number one in the health services they have to render to their communities. It is true that in South Africa we have not yet reached the stage some other countries have reached largely because we are not so densely populated and because we have so many large open spaces between the various big cities of our country. But I do say this that it is a problem which we dare not allow to remain static at all. Despite the fact that we have not as much information at our disposal as we might like to have there is a considerable amount of work to be done, work which if taken in hand immediately will prepare us satisfactorily for the time when the results of the research which is going on in our country are available to us to put to practical use. There is no question about it, Sir, that we in South Africa are fortunate in that we have a very fine research organization in the C.S.I.R. We have had the co-operation of industrialists and the commercial world as well as that of the various Government departments in this particular problem. I think with the concerted efforts of finance, the experiments of industrialists themselves and the C.S.I.R. it will not take us very long before a sound operational machine will be able to go into action not only to deal with the existing problem but to avoid any aggravation of what already exists.

In common with others here I would like to pay tribute to all who have been concerned with this Bill. I think the Select Committee which consisted of members from both sides of the House worked extremely hard and were able to have advantage of some very eminent South African scientists, men like Prof. Halliday and Dr. Wilson. Those two gentlemen were of inestimable value to the Select Committee. I think it is rather difficult to differentiate between any section of the combined efforts that were made to produce this Bill. I think in this measure of unity the hon. the Minister is entitled to his share for bringing the Bill eventually to Parliament and piloting it through which I hope he will in due course. What this really does then is to bring us into line with the thinking and the actions of most countries of the world. The problem, of course, is a very old one and it has been exercising the attention of authorities for many years. It may surprise the hon. the Minister to know that in Britain it was as early as 1627—four centuries ago—that King Charles I asked the Royal College of Physicians to investigate the alum works because its ’loathsome vapour was annoying the inhabitants within the radius of one mile.’ In 1661 one John Evelyn published a paper—Humidium or the Inconvenience of the Air and Smoke of London dissipate. That was the title and he delpored the fact that the ancient city of London ’should wrap her stately head in clouds of smoke and sulphur so full of stink and darkness.’ This is rather interesting, Sir, because it was the first country in the world that had the enormous industrial development where vapours and foreign elements in the air were caused by the hand of man. Yet it is also interesting to note that it was the smog tragedy in the London area in December, 1952 in which some 4,000 persons died from bronchitis and pneumonia which resulted in the appointment of a Royal Commission which, in turn, led to their particular statute called The Clean Air Act of 1956’. As I have said nothing as serious as all that has fortunately happened here but it is essential for us to take these necessary steps. It is also interesting to note that in 1955, for instance, a National Committee on Air Pollution was appointed under the auspices of the Department of Health which was itself beginning to get worried about the situation. After one or two draft bills, with the assistance of the C.S.I.R. and other contributions by industries and the Government and local authorities, and a conference in 1960 for a fund to deal with matters of this nature, a Select Committee was appointed and we have the Bill in its present form before us today.

One of the difficulties which face us in South Africa and which has not perhaps come to the notice of many people is the fact that with the establishment of various industries, with the continuous noxious fumes and other effects of motor vehicles and heavy duty vehicles, there has been a tendency in our big cities for the suburbs to be established further and further away from the centres of the cities. New suburbs have been established which took the residents from the areas where factories have been established giving rise to this type of fumes. That has led to two interesting things. The one is the emergence of a type of suburb known as the “blighted” area and the other is the tremendous increase in expenditure because of the various public services which are required when new townships are established. This is one thing that must be taken into account. This is one type of process that has no end in a sense. In a city like Johannesburg, for instance, the furthest suburbs to-day are, I think, some 15 to 17 miles away from the centre of the town. In fact the perimeter has become so widespread that new local authorities have been established on the northern fringes of Johannesburg. One was established a couple of years ago and another one is in the course of being established now. The problem becomes so elongated that it is necessary to have a local authority to deal with the more immediate neighbourhood which is becoming more densely populated. So it is a problem which, unless arrested, can lead to numerous other by-problems which, seemingly unrelated, can nevertheless involve our country in a great deal of expenditure and virtually a wastage of material, of manpower and a wastage of funds. So from my point of view I cannot sufficiently impress upon the Minister that the sooner we get on with the machinery of this Bill the better.

I am particularly interested in the one question which has been touched upon namely this question of the fumes emitted by vehicles and heavy duty vehicles. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has referred to an occurrence in one of the big cities in the Ruhr Valley where they actually close the city to motor vehicle traffic for four hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon. The vapours caused by motor vehicle traffic is very dangerous to the human being. I have taken some extracts from a book written by Prof. Kotin in America. This deals with diesel fumes as well as petroleum gas and he says this—

This is what he says—

He makes this comparison—

And here we have a case where there is emitted 2500 micrograms per minute which gives the effect of smoking 350,000 cigarettes! This ties up entirely with the whole question that has been raised by all sides of the effect of cigarette smoking causing lung cancer, the effect of diesel or petrol fumes and so on. I think that our cities are suffering considerably from this. I talk purely as a man in the street in a city like Johannesburg. When you drive along in your car you are virtually at times compelled to close the windows of the car or any other aperture through which air comes because of the passing of heavy duty vehicles emitting a thick heavy black gas. Part V of this Bill deals with this problem. It enables the Minister, on proper representations made, to appoint a local authority in charge of this particular aspect to deal with the testing of cars and so forth. I think this is one of the most vital aspects of the whole of this problem. Although the Bill talks about trying to provide the best method it is obviously so because we cannot lay down any arbitrary method at this stage. We shall continuously have to change our methods until we eventually reach what is called the best method. Just before I leave this question of petrol gases and so forth an article which appeared in The Manufacturer of February 1964 says that air pollution by the fumes emitted by motor vehicles, fumes in which carbon monoxide is regarded as an important constituent, can have an effect on a driver of a car and lull his senses. There are many cases on record of people wishing to commit suicide by a painless death achieving this by leading a pipe from the exhaust of a car into the closed car. Carbon monoxide fumes lull people into insensibility and eventually death. This article says—

Lending force to the campaign to clean up the air, is the greater emphasis being laid today on the toxic effects of carbon monoxide. In a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, two neurologists have reported the case of a New Haven traffic cop whose moods have varied between “overly jocular and playful” to “nervous and irritable”. After doing duty in busy streets he used to get dizzy and sleepy and often became unconscious for long periods of time. Eventually he was transferred to the police garage but got no better. A spell in hospital did wonders, but six months back on the job left him no better off. The whole case posed a major mystery to Yale doctors until the traffic cop went holidaying on a farm where he walked behind a tractor. Fumes from this vehicle gave him the same symptoms he had suffered in the city. Electro-encephalograms showed abnormal curves, he was mentally dull, couldn—t concentrate and was prone to tremble. His complaint was at last discovered to be carbon monoxide poisoning.

It goes on—

That illustrates that it is a distinct possibility that motor accidents may be aggravated by the fact that motorists themselves, through sources of which they are completely unaware, become dull. Their concentration and attention to driving suffer considerably as a result. That is why the reaction of motorists in an emergency in heavy traffic in city streets leads to such peculiar and stupid accidents. So this is a very vital factor to be dealt with. In fact, I am not so sure whether this is not the first thing that will have to be dealt with as priority number one because it is one which can be dealt with more easily than the other important factors which arise from industry where, obviously, as other countries have said, one must go a little slower because of the economic factors involved, but nevertheless must be dealt with.

I refer to Germany because they probably have the most concentrated problem. With regard to the question of smoke emitted from chimneys and so on the cities in Germany have made certain progress—I think other European cities as well—by installing special heating plants in big blocks of buildings. These heating plants supply heat through an elaborate system of pipes so much so that a central heating plant is called for by city planners and architects Architects are instructed to make provision for such heating plants when preparing plans for big blocks of building. Certain municipalities and Governments in Europe provide loans to local authorities to enable this form of central heating to become generally applicable so that a stop can be put to the smoke emitted by the coal burners normally used to provide central heating in a building. There are many methods that can be used. I know the Railways have been criticised; to some extent we have not got that problem in Johannesburg, but they are busily trying to overcome that problem by speeding up the electrification of the Railways, which one can highly commend; but it is a problem and that also can probably be dealt with by an investigation by the C.S.I.R.

Then there is this other question of smoke emitted by industries. We are for instance building a new Birmingham in the Vanderbijl-Vaal-Complex, where we have Sasol which probably is going to be our big chemical industrial home in South Africa, and there we have the emission of smoke and those who come from afar watch it with a great deal of concern. Certain steps have been taken in Europe to overcome a problem of this nature. An interesting example is given in a newspaper called The German Tribune. It says:

The result has been that the fumes and smoke have now a purity of 99.7 per cent. So there is a lot to be done in this particular field, and we can possibly learn a great deal from other countries in the world, particularly Europe. We have these chemical plants at Sasolburg and we can have them there but at the same time avoid the surrounding neighbourhood from suffering ill-effects. Because it can only lead to one thing eventually, unfortunately, and that is to have either just a local town only for those who work in the factories and an avoidance of any further general city or urban development. That is one thing we must watch out for in our country, because obviously in a country with our wide spaces we will want new urban areas erected, and new development all the time. Hitherto most development has taken place around established industries or industries which are in the course of being established, but we have to help the people there, otherwise we will have the same experience of the “blighted” towns coming into being and people moving further out and out. These things create a never-ending circle of cost, an ever-widening circle of cost which can be crippling in a country such as ours, where our prosperity for the moment, will in time, have to be sufficiently devoted to other pursuits in order that we may develop our country to its maximum extent.

The other factor that I thought is commendable and where I think the local authorities might be given the opportunity of commencing as soon as possible, is the question of smoke-control zones. This could be a very important factor in avoiding these “blighted” areas, in avoiding slum conditions, avoiding deterioration of good suburbs and deterioration in the lives of the working people of our country. I think the sooner we can get the local authorities busy under the relevant sections of the Bill in this field, the better. My suggestion to the hon. Minister, if I may, would be this, that if we can through the chief-officer begin to deploy our forces under this Bill through the avenue of local authorities who are very anxious indeed to proceed with this work, because they are the people who deal with these problems daily, we would soon achieve results. For some years now municipalities have had by-laws in regard to the disposal of effluents which they found were corroding their streams and their water-pipes, and more particularly the sewage disposal pipes. For instance, when Sasol was originally mooted and had to draw about 7,000,000 gallons of water a day from the Vaal River, and discussed the matter with the Rand Water Board, the whole question of the disposal of the effluents became vital, because normally that would have been disposed of into the Vaal River from which we draw the drinking water for the whole Witwatersrand complex. A very important issue arose in that connection and was dealt with, but fortunately, the local authority had had some experience in dealing with the disposal of effluent water and we were able to overcome it, but that is what delayed the original establishment of the oil-from-coal industry. At that time a private organization, the Anglo-Vaal, started it, and eventually it was taken over by the State and became what it is to-day, Sasol. So I would suggest that we deploy our forces through the local authorities as soon as we can: The smoke control zoning, the question of noxious fumes from vehicles, are two important avenues where the local authorities could immediately go into action, and where the money from the fund to be established would certainly not only be well applied, but would be gladly applied, and then we can go on to the much more extensive side, and that is the question of industry itself.

One final point I would like to mention to the hon. Minister. A friend of mine, a medical man, told me to-day that it is an absolute fact that farming people in the outlying communities, because of the use of tractors, are buying diesel oil in bulk, wholesale. He came to find this out because he was inquiring into the reason why such a large number of Mercedes Benz vehicles were being used there, and he wondered why the farming community was going in particularly for that vehicle. He was told that they use diesel oil and so they use a cheap fuel and, secondly, they are getting it wholesale, and he said that this might be the commencement of a further problem in the country where this whole question of noxious fumes has not yet arisen. A further problem would be created. So your problem can spread very quickly. It all depends how widely you disperse the use of the various components that bring about this problem.

May I conclude on the note that not only do we welcome this Bill, but this Bill is a Bill that is welcomed by the whole country. I think it has come about largely through the avenue of the Department of Health with their knowledge and their experience, as well as the concerted desire of local authorities, the man in the street who is suffering as a result of certain industries and the ever-increasing number of vehicles on our roads. I believe that we should not wait for further research. Research will continue to go on, but let us apply the Act as immediately as possible wherever we can, in the most practical manner. [Time limit.]

The discussion hitherto in connection with this Bill shows that we are all unanimous, and that the terrain has now practically been trodden to dust, so much so that a new problem will probably arise, a new type of air pollution.

The members of the commission which investigated this matter did particularly good work and, in view of the fact that I was not a member of that commission, I should like, as the representative of a constituency in one of the large cities which has much to do with this problem, to express my hearty thanks to the commission and also to those who gave evidence. I have studied the report fairly thoroughly, and I find that this evidence was of very great value. I particularly refer to the very enlightening evidence of a scientist like Dr. E. C. Halliday of the C.S.I.R., who made a great contribution in this regard.

There are certain advantages attached to living in a city, but those advantages and privileges are not always an unmixed blessing. In time the city-dweller pays a heavy price for this so-called advantage on the one hand because he is subject to a higher cost of living and becomes the victim of steadily increasing property taxes, but also because he becomes a victim through lack of space, in view of the fact that he is confined within the borders of a plot (if he is so fortunate as to be the owner of a plot) or otherwise feels even more limited within the four walls of a flat. On the other hand, the heaviest price the city-dweller has to pay is the undermining of his health, which gradually affects him and his family, largely as the result of air pollution. The influence on health of air pollution is up to now practically indeterminable, but when one reads about the deleterious effect air pollution has, for example, on plant life then one can imagine what its effect must be on the physique of frail humanity. I refer here to a paragraph which appeared in The German Tribune under the heading, “Air Pollution in the Ruhr Area Continues”. It reads as follows—

It may seem that air pollution of all kinds is only an urban problem. The remark has also been made here that it is only sporadic. But, Sir, it is, in the first place, the problem of certain large cities, and in this regard I think of Durban and Johannesburg and all the towns and cities of the Witwatersrand, and I think of Pretoria and to a lesser extent I think of Bloemfontein and East London. If one takes the White population of that area, the density of the population, I would estimate that the population in those areas comprises perhaps 55 per cent or even more of the entire White population of the Republic, and that density of population is still increasing. We should take into consideration that those cities are among the fast-growing cities of our Republic. In this regard I refer particularly to Durban and Pretoria. In addition, we should bear in mind that the number of factories and industries is steadily increasing, and with the expansion of these industries and the increasing use of coal and other types of fuel an increase in the volume of smoke is, of course, unavoidable. Consequently, we accept that the pollution of the air will steadily increase, and that the harmful gases will also increase in volume. What was experienced in the mines for so many years is now being experienced by the urban surface communities in a somewhat modified form as the result of the smog and gases to which they are exposed. In the mines the effects of silicosis and other diseases caused by dust were thoroughly experienced both by the employees, who felt the effects in their bodies when they had contracted these diseases, and by their families, who suffered as the result, and on the other hand the employer was aware of the fact that the productivity of his employees had decreased. As the result of purifying methods, those diseases were gradually reduced. I repeat that, as the result of the increasing air pollution, danger is threatening the general public on a very large scale. Therefore we are glad that the problem is being tackled on a broad national basis. It is very fortunate that it is now generally realized that air pollution has reached the stage where it must be regarded as very harmful to the health of the nation in general, and we know that the Government has accepted this fact, and that the Minister has, therefore, introduced this Bill.

But as an inhabitant of Pretoria and the representative of one of the constituencies there, I want to mention that, not only the inhabitants of Pretoria as such, but also the City Council there, are particularly grateful for the fact that this legislation is being placed on the Statute Book. In Pretoria there has always been very close co-operation between the Health Department and the City Planning Department in connection with the establishment of light and heavy industries. Originally the industries were pushed out towards the borders of the city, but the city expanded so fast that soon those light industries were surrounded by residential areas. We know that the city councils originally, in terms of the by-laws available to them, tried to combat air pollution, particularly in respect of the by-laws dealing with the commission of a nuisance. I remember that the Medical Officer of Health in Pretoria was asked in 1959 already to submit a report in connection with this matter. At that time he also said that he considered it a national problem and he recommended that the City Council of Pretoria should make contributions in regard to research in connection with this matter. The City Council of Pretoria then undertook to make an annual contribution of R2,000 for a period of five years for research to be done under the guidance of the C.S.I.R.

The position in Pretoria is that on a windless morning, particularly in winter when a southern breeze is blowing, a continuous mass of smog hangs over the city like a grey pall. It is a fact that this smog clings to plants and buildings, but what is more, it also clings to one’s clothes and to one’s skin; and even worse than all that is the fact that every time one breathes it penetrates deep into one’s lungs. In the winter months this position is of course much worse than in summer because it is ascribed to the atmospheric conditions during the winter months, which are not such that the smog can be dispersed. It is also indicated in the report that a few years ago the C.S.I.R. took readings in connection with smoke in Pretoria, and it was found that the smoke in Pretoria in winter equalled the smoky conditions one finds in parts of London, Southampton and Leicester. It is also mentioned in the report that in Pretoria more than 2,000,000 tons of coal is burnt every year by the electric power station, by a number of industries, and of course through the combustion of coal in the winter by thousands of householders. On the other hand it was also said that this smokiness resulted in visibility being reduced during the winter. The visibility in Pretoria has already on occasion been less than one block. It was so bad that the headlights of motor vehicles had to be switched on. One can imagine what would happen if there were to be an increase in the smog, and how that would lead to more accidents taking place. After investigation it was also found that of the 2,000,000 tons of coal used in Pretoria, only 300,000 tons actually cause the smoke, and the smoke is caused mostly by the incomplete combustion of the coal. Therefore it is a good thing that in this Bill the local authorities are given the power to control the type of coal burnt. It may have the beneficial effect of people making increasing use of electricity, or of their possibly changing over to using coke or anthracite or gas. To me the basic and very important principle of this Bill is that the owner of a factory or of installations causing smoke can be told to apply the best practical method of reducing smoke, or to combat the production of such smoke. In other words, the philosophy which is the basis of this B 11 is that an industry or other body can be forced to eliminate smoke or other gases and fumes as effectively as possible.

It has been pointed out in various respects that air pollution does not result merely from smoke and smog. It also arises as the result of gases and fumes which are emitted and which are irritating and very harmful, and which are emitted by various types of vehicles. Diesel vehicles have also been referred to. It is said that if no smoke visibly comes from the exhaust pipe of a diesel vehicle it still does not mean that no fumes are being emitted. Although not visible, these fumes are still there and they are still harmful and irritating. Therefore it is a good thing that this Bill covers such a wide terrain. I feel that this legislation has not come too soon. It should rather have come earlier. We also know that this is really only the beginning of a good thing and not the end of it by far, and in that respect we want to express the hope that the Department of Health which is handling this matter will achieve great success. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the local authorities are quite ready to co-operate. They have already shown such interest in it that they have made money available for research. We are very glad that the Government made funds available on a 50 per cent basis so that C.S.I.R. could already start the research. In this regard I want to express my wholehearted support also on behalf of the City of Pretoria which is seriously concerned with this problem. I wish to express my best wishes to the Department in connection with this great task which rests on its shoulders. I emphasize that this is only the beginning of a great undertaking, and I want to extend my best wishes to the Department and other bodies in this regard.

I rise to say that I welcome this Bill and I will support the Bill and will certainly vote for it. I want, however, to make two comments on this Bill. Firstly I feel that the Bill should have gone further. The title of the Bill is “Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Bill”, but why does the Bill aim only at prevention of pollution of the atmosphere outside buildings and not bring into its scope any effort to prevent pollution inside public buildings, inside public places, public conveyances, hospitals, etc. I feel that a Bill of this nature could very well have been wider in its scope, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to that point, that is internal pollution as well as external pollution. I will make this statement that in many cases I have found internal pollution of atmosphere to be far more extensive and far more continuous than external pollution. I am referring of course to smoking in public places. I can recall occasions in a private hotel in Great Britain where smoking had gone on during the tea interval and when the people left after the tea interval, I opened the windows and there was smog outside, but I let the so-called smog in to drive out the smog inside the building. This takes place to a very large extent here in South Africa in public conveyances, public halls, cinemas etc.—the air is often blue with smoke, and the people who sit there sit there for hours breathing that in, whereas in the public streets people do not as a rule stay about for any length of time, but get away from the public street and go to their offices, or their places of entertainment, etc. I maintain that a great deal more damage is done by internal pollution than by the external pollution.

Mr. Speaker, people jump to conclusions by quoting statistics to show that the incidence of lung cancer is greater in cities than in the country areas, and they immediately jump to the conclusion, without anything to support their statements, that the difference must be brought about by the smog in the cities. Now one authority in Great Britain—I have his book here—McCurdy has made some interesting statements about the whole problem. The book has a foreword by Dr. Burton, the head of the Health Education Department of Great Britain which has circulated this book. Dr. McCurdy puts forward this view on the difference between an apparent greater incidence of lung cancer in the cities than in the rural areas. His theory, which seems to be the only one which fits in with all the circumstances. is that in the cities there is greater congestion and people spend much longer periods in public places where smoking goes on than they do in the country areas and for much longer periods they are exposed to tobacco fumes. That is his theory and it is the only one that fits all the circumstances because those who jump to the conclusion that the smog is the reason for a larger incidence of lung cancer in the cities than in the country areas overlook the fact that women in the cities breathe the same air as do the men, yet at the present time there is a lower incidence of lung cancer among the women than among the men. But the lung cancer incidence among women is rising rapidly, and the difference, no doubt, is due to the fact that women started smoking at a much later period—to a large extent only since World War II, and as lung cancer takes anything from 25 to 30 years to develop, women are developing it much more rapidly now and therefore there is that proof that you cannot just jump to conclusions that the amount of lung cancer in the cities is due to smog. That can also be borne out by the fact that Finland, Switzerland and the Channel Islands, to mention only a few countries with a very high incidence of lung cancer, are countries where there is no smog, but these countries are among the highest in the world in tobacco-smoking. We must therefore look further than just try to put down the incidence of lung cancer in the cities to the smog there. Dr. McCurdy appears to put forward the most reasonable explanation, South Africa is lagging behind other countries in the world in regard to this matter of dealing with air pollution caused by tobacco smoke in public places. The British Safety Council recently made a survey and found that only in five out of the 40 countries in which they made the survey was smoking allowed in cinemas, theatres, hospitals and other public places. So South Africa is now lagging behind the world in this respect because we are not dealing with this problem of smoking in public places. In New Zealand, Australia and many states in the U.S.A., as well as Russia, Rumania, Italy, Ceylon and other countries, smoking in public halls, transport and hospitals is prohibited. In Czechoslovakia they actually go so far as to prohibit smoking by drivers of motor cars, as it has been shown that the pollution of the air in a closed motor car can tend to reduce the efficiency of the driver. I feel, therefore, that this is a matter which the Minister may very well pay attention to in extending the scope of this Bill to cover internal air pollution as well as external pollution.

Now I want to come to my second point. I feel it is a great pity that the hon. the Minister should have polluted the atmosphere of the discussions on this Bill by bringing in a totally incorrect statement, which he made no effort whatever to prove. The statement I am referring to is contained in a report in the S.A. Digest, and which was reported in practically every newspaper in South Africa, and therefore it received great currency. The statement by the Minister was this—

That is what the Minister of Health said in the House of Assembly—“It has been found”, without making any attempt to prove that statement.

Now the hon. member for Johannesburg-North (Mrs. Weiss) was speaking in the debate and quoted statistics produced by the C.S.I.R. These figures show that among non-smokers in the rural areas eight per 100,000 died of lung cancer. In the five large cities the incidence was nineteen per 100,000. That has been taken to show that therefore it was the smog in the cities which makes this difference, but what people fail to notice is that those statistics go on to show that in the five large cities referred to the incidence of lung cancer per 100,000 among heavy smokers was 180, as compared to 19 non-smokers. There are therefore twice as many deaths from lung cancer in the cities than in the rural areas, but nearly ten times as many deaths in the cities among heavy smokers than among non-smokers. These are the statistics produced by C. E. Latsky of the S.S.I.R. Air Pollution Research Unit, and in these matters we must take the authoritative figures given by official, disinterested bodies. He was quoting from Dr. Geoffrey Dean’s survey that in the rural areas eight per 100,000 non-smokers die of lung cancer, but nineteen in the cities, but that in the same cities where the smokers breathe the same air as the non-smokers, 180 per 100,000 die of lung cancer. In the face of those statistics I cannot see how the hon. the Minister can possibly support his statement that air pollution is a far greater cause of lung cancer than tobacco smoke.

I now want to quote from the most authoritative books that have been published recently by official, disinterested bodies. I first want to refer to the statement made by the British Medical Research Council in 1957. This bears distinctly on the statement made by the hon. the Minister. It reads as follows—

It goes on further to say the following—

That is a statement by the Medical Research Council of Great Britain which obviously has no axe to grind. I come then to the volume issued by the Royal College of Physicians on smoking in relation to cancer of the lung and other diseases. This volume consists of nearly 100 pages; it quotes from 216 leading authorities before coming to the conclusions which they arrived at. Sir, they arrived at the following conclusions; I quote from the top of page 24—

Then I quote from the bottom of page 24—

Dr. Robert McCurdy, to whom I referred a moment ago, has this to say in his book which has been circulated by the medical director of the central council of health education of Great Britain. On page 12 he quotes from the British Medical Journal of 5 September 1953, page 5 to 6—

I want to quote further from the report of the committee appointed by the Surgeon-General of the U.S.A. on smoking and its effects on health. This report was issued last year and refers to 107 different authorities. The committee investigated every possible reason for the great increase in lung cancer. This is what the committee says in its report on page 31—

Sir, I do not know where one can find anything more authoritative than the three reports which I have quoted here. It is quite useless for some individual doctor to come along with this, that or the other opinion in the light of this evidence. These are official reports from Governments which themselves receive an enormous amount of revenue from tobacco. One certainly cannot regard them therefore as being interested parties. I feel that in the face of these statistics which I have quoted, the opinions expressed by these authoritative bodies, that the hon. the Minister has done great harm to the health of South Africa in having broadcast the statement which he did without any effort whatsoever to substantiate his statement. I maintain that that statement which was publicized all over the country, will lull people into a false sense of security, particularly those large numbers of smokers who had begun to worry about their condition of health. As I say, a statement like that, made with the authority of the Minister, will carry a great deal of weight, will lull people into a false sense of security with the result that they will discontinue their efforts to give up smoking. Sir, that statement comes from the hon. the Minister at a time when the Cancer Association of South Africa is at present initiating a campaign throughout the schools of South Africa to show schoolchildren the dangers of smoking, particularly with reference to lung cancer caused by smoking. It seems to me that it was quite unnecessary for the hon. the Minister to have made that comparison. There are ample reasons for supporting this Bill and I am prepared to support it myself. Ample has been said on both sides of the House to demonstrate the danger to health of smog and air pollution in general. The Minister’s statement, coming at this time, may well be responsible for much physical suffering and unnecessary loss of life in South Africa.

I find it peculiar that hon. members on both sides of the House are so much in agreement in regard to this measure. We have already heard so many statistics here in connection with diseases caused by various gases and dust and smoke, etc. that I am not going to concentrate on adducing further evidence against these poisonous gases. I just want to confine myself to a few remarks which in my opinion are constructive. It has already been repeatedly said here that lung cancer is caused by smoking cigarettes. Particularly the last speaker, the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field), is very much opposed to smoking and he blamed the Minister for having expressed an opinion in regard to this matter. If the hon. member is so afraid of lung cancer which is caused by smoking, it surprises me that he still actually has the courage to get into his motor car and to drive through the streets, because many more people are killed on the road than die as the result of smoking. However, we do not want to minimize the danger of cigarette smoking. We have statistics and data from various hon. members to-day to show that smog is a greater cause of the development of lung cancer than cigarettes. I readily agree that smog causes more heart and lung diseases than cigarette smoke, and that it also worsens existing heart and lung diseases. Therefore I feel that it is essential for us to try to combat smog as far as possible.

An attempt is being made in this Bill to some extent to limit and to purify the smoke emanating from factory chimneys. The Select Committee was faced with the greatest producer of smoke, viz. the chimneys of the houses of Whites as well as non-Whites. We have tried to think of a way to reduce that smoke to some extent. But we felt that to expect these people to switch over to electric stoves and heaters, or to coke ovens and heaters, would be impossible and would be economically beyond the reach particularly of the non-White population. We know that in winter much more coal is used, because it is not only used for cooking but also for heating purposes. At that time more smoke enters the atmosphere through the chimneys of the houses of both Whites and non-Whites. Due to the atmospheric conditions in the winter the smoke also remains hanging over the various towns and cities and that causes smog. Fortunately we do not have the misty conditions they have overseas and the smoke here is not as dense as it is there, and consequently it does not constitute the same danger. But I do feel that we should try to some extent to limit the smoke emanating from those chimneys.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) referred to a stove which was being tested by the C.S.I.R. in 1963 and which would result in the better combustion of coal and consequently would release fewer coal dust particles in the atmosphere. I have not yet heard whether the C.S.I.R.’s tests of that stove were successful and whether it was proved that this stove would fulfill its object. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he cannot use his influence with the C.S.I.R. and ask them to try to develop such a coal stove which is cheap and can be used by both Whites and non-Whites, so that the present type of coal stove may be eliminated. In that way the greatest producer of smoke in our urban areas would be eliminated. I feel that unless we do so we will be negativing the objects we have set for ourselves.

I also feel that the gases and oil fumes released into the atmosphere by petrol and diesel-burning vehicles are much more dangerous to lung diseases and also to heart diseases than cigarette smoke. In contrast to my hon. friend the member for Parow, I feel that the sooner we take steps to control the exhaust fumes emanating from this type of vehicle the better. I would have preferred to see our traffic officers engaging themselves in testing fumes emanating from exhaust pipes rather than checking whether one has parked for five minutes too long. I think that would be much better for our health.

In so far as the dust nuisance is concerned, I want to say that in the earlier days the mines did very little to combat the dust nuisance emanating from mine dumps. We cannot completely blame them because it is only during the last ten to fifteen years that mines have been closing down. Before that they always pumped the wet slimes into dams. That kept the dams moist and therefore erosion did not take place to the same extent, and so the wind could not blow so much dust from the mine dumps. It is since the mines began closing down that the mine dumps have started drying out and have caused dust to begin blowing over the towns and cities. Then in 1957/58 they started experiments to combat this dust coming from the mine dumps. It is pleasing to be able to say at present they have to a large extent solved the problem, and that they are now covering the slopes and also the top areas of the mine dumps with plant growth. They are doing that more or less all over the Rand. In Springs there has been a great improvement because there also they are planting grass. We are all grateful for it. We just want to ask the hon. the Minister to keep a watchful eye on these mining companies and to make sure that they do not later relax their efforts and resume a laissez faire attitude, so that the nuisance remains in existence. Then we have the old mine dumps whose original owners are no longer there and in regard to which the present mine-owners say that they are not responsible. The State also feels that it is not responsible. These old silt dams constitute a nuisance to the people in the vicinity where they are situated. I do think that the hon. Minister should establish a levy fund to which possibly the Chamber of Mines and the State as well as the local authority concerned should contribute in order to plant grass on these slimes dams and so to put a stop to the nuisance.

I think that this Bill, as it is before the House, is an excellent one and a step in the right direction. I just hope and trust that the Minister will keep himself au fait with all new developments, and that when new methods are found to reduce either gases or smoke or dust he will not hesitate to insert it in the Act.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), came with the surprising suggestion that the Minister should not take on the number of officials to enforce this Bill. Well, Sir, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and is proclaimed, must cover a wide country and many different facts of air pollution. It is not as if it is only to be applied to one particular form of air pollution; it has to cover so many forms, and in its initial stage, as has been shown by many speakers, it is going to cover various facets and different types of air pollution that there is very much to be learned as to firstly the way to get people to do away or minimize air pollution, but still more how to enforce the doing away with air pollution and get convictions in a court. All those who have to deal with the enforcement of such Acts in the courts of this country, especially when it breaks new ground as this Bill does, know the difficulty that we encounter in enforcing such legislation. A measure such as this, before the House, which seems to be supported by everyone in this House, by the Select Committee, by everybody who has given evidence before that Select Committee, is very necessary. I think it is supported by 90 per cent of the public outside this House. The very few against whom the provisions of this Bill must be enforced are those who are breaking the provisions which have to be enforced because they do not wish to spend money in doing away with air pollution. It is an economic factor in whatever sphere of life they are engaged in, maybe in the form of motor-vehicles or even, as one speaker who was on the Select Committee, stated, that after examining the position and realizing that the State could not prosecute the State, that they had to pass a pious resolution in relation to the South African Railways and ask the hon. Minister of Transport to do a little to see that the smog did not come from the South African Railways. As he stated, in many of the cities and large towns situated especially in the coastal areas, much of the smog comes from the shunting yards of the S.A.R. We know that is so in cities like Durban, East London. Port Elizabeth and many other centres, even in some of the inland centres. When there is no wind much of the smog comes from the shunting yards of the South African Railways where many old engines are often used and smog settles over the city to add to the smog of old-fashioned factories. I think it is unfortunate that we cannot handle that problem in this Bill and that we just have to say to the hon. Minister of Transport that we do hope that he will do something to minimize this added factor to the smog which affects the health of the people of South Africa. But it goes further than that, because, as already stated, when you get down to the street air pollution by diesel engines and heavy vehicles, you find that quite a number of these vehicles are run and owned by the S.A.R. There again we are going to find that we will once again be rather hamstrung in enforcing provisions against the vehicles of the South African Railways if they are emitting heavy diesel smoke from the exhausts of these vehicles. I feel here I must appeal to the hon. Minister to appoint as many officers as he possibly can, as soon as possible after this Bill becomes law. I do not know how many efficient officers the Minister is going to get in view of the manpower shortage we have in this country. That is going to be one of the snags we are going to encounter when this Bill becomes law, and unless the hon. Minister is in a position to pay adequate salaries to the people he appoints, and here again we come up against the snag of the Public Service Commission, we are going to have trouble in getting people to take up the appointments and to stay in those appointments and not to take on a job there as a temporary stepping-stone to some other position, and to leave that service at the first possible moment for a better position in commerce or industry.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.