I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

There remain aspects of this legislation which, I think, should be highlighted. The first is that it would be a great pity if the public got it into their heads that, now that this Bill is on the Order Paper and will be passed soon, the air will clear like magic and the blue skies will be seen again in industrial and other areas. Because, Sir, after nine years of intensive effort, the United Kingdom has only succeeded in getting 25 per cent of its countryside clear of air pollution. Our problem, though not so severe in an industrial way, i.e. the effluents from industry are not so grave in our country, has nevertheless a very grave problem in that we have a large population, the non-Whites, whose habitual form of heating and cooking is an open grate, or even an open fire on the ground, the most inefficient method of combustion in burning either wood or coal of which it is possible to think. You will remember. Sir, that the Bantu bee-hive hut is constructed without a window and without a chimney, and the traditional way of living in the colder areas, or when it is raining, is, and always has been so far as history can discover, to have an open fire on the ground in the middle of the hut. When it is considered carefully, and is realized that the hut is waterproof to even severe storms and yet the smoke escapes through the interstices in the constructive materials which are used, usually sticks and straw, it will be appreciated that the atmosphere in these huts is generally full of smoke. That is the way they enjoy living. Therefore any effort to change this habit will face immense difficulties. It will face a great deal of opposition from the individuals themselves. They like a fire and wherever they can get something to burn in their huts, or in the fires which are provided for them, they like to create a smoky atmosphere, and this in the new townships is going to be a great problem. In other respects this problem will not be so difficult to solve. The other non-Whites, the Coloureds and the Asiatics can be convinced probably that it is in their own interests to burn their fuel more efficiently, and in some cases even to use electricity, but with the Bantu the problem is almost insuperable.

Local authorities under this Act are permitted to subsidize the manufacture of smokeless fuel, but this is more of a pious wish than a practical proposition. To produce this smokeless fuel at a rate which can be economically employed by the non-Whites is not possible in my opinion. Even the great countries of Europe which have given a great deal of attention to this particular aspect, have not succeeded in producing a smokeless fuel in sufficient quantities and at an economic price making it acceptable to the lower income groups. In our country we should as far as possible try to use electricity. I am not suggesting that you will get the Bantu to accept electricity readily, but I do feel that the Ministries of Community Development and of Housing should seriously consider when they are laying out new villages for the non-Whites of the upper class, the higher income groups, and for the Whites in the lower income groups and others, to declare them from the start to be smokeless zones, in other words, they should not permit the air of these new housing schemes to become polluted; they should declare, as is in their power, under this Act, smokeless zones, and all new housing schemes should as far as it is possible be smokeless zones. The local authorities should be prepared to subsidize this use of electricity. I think there are local authorities, in fact I know there are such authorities, who make a profit out of the supply of electricity to household consumers and to industrialists, but particularly to householders. I think the Government after introducing a Bill of this nature, should seriously consider investigating the price structure of electricity and see if a profit is being made, because if we are going to combat the problem of the household consumer of coal, one of the means must be by the introduction of cheaper electricity, and, if necessary, it should be subsidized. At any rate, under no circumstances should a municipality or other body supplying electricity be permitted to increase the health hazards of atmospheric pollution by making a profit out of the sale of electricity. Electricity is like water, like air: air is more necessary than water, and to allow pollution of the air, when it can be minimized by the use of cheap electricity, is unforgiveable. At the present moment with the rising cost of living, there are changing habits even among the Whites which will lead to the increased use of electricity, especially if assisted. I refer particularly to the changing habit brought about as a result of the housewife now going out to work. Formerly when the housewife stayed at home, looked after it and stayed there all day, she lit the fire in the morning and it was kept going all day, polluting the atmosphere as a result of inefficient combustion. But with the housewife now going out to work, the fire is only needed for a short period at breakfast time and will not be lit again until evening to cook the evening meal and perhaps to heat the water for the household requirements. Sir, you will readily see that this is eminently suitable to the use of electricity, and in addition the Government’s action in taking away the domestic servants, is increasing the work which the housewife formerly passed on to the servant, and so we find that the housewife, now having to do her own work, is moving more and more towards labour-saving devices, which are always electrically driven. This increases the use of electricity and tends to make the housewife feel more and more inclined to go to the expense of introducing it, but unless the price is made reasonable, unless it is within the reach of the ordinary lower income groups, that group will not go to the capital expense of installing electricity and using labour-saving devices. The only other solution is the introduction of gas. The first thing the Government should pray for is that somebody in his search for oil will find some natural gases at the same item. The whole problem would then be solved, as it has been solved in Northern Africa; in Algeria they have so much natural petroleum gas available that England is building tankers to fill up with gas and take it to England for the use of the English people. There is even talk, Sir—it sounds absurd—of filling balloons with this new gas and hitching them to the back of ships and dragging them to England in that way. This will show you what great importance is attached to the use of gas. Whether the present usage of sending gas in bottles from the refineries is safe, I cannot say. Whether it could be safely supplied to the Bantu in the Bantu townships, I am not prepared to say, because I think there must be some danger of explosion. The only answer to air pollution from coal is to introduce gas or electricity, and the Government should seriously consider subsidizing both forms of fuel.

Now I want to refer briefly to the problems which the chief officer will face. In the first place I think the hon. Minister will have the greatest difficulty in obtaining a chief officer if he is going to allow himself to be tied to the Public Service Rates of Pay. This man must be a paragon of virtue, courage and knowledge. He must be prepared to fight on a level with the greatest industrial chemists in the country. He must be able to argue his own case and have the courage to do so. He is entering a field where knowledge is almost absent. Few people know what the actual pollutants are; few people in the world know what happens to the actual pollutants when they enter the atmosphere. We have, e.g. ozone; ozone used to be quoted as wonderful substance to inhale, and you went to the sea to get the ozone into your lungs. Now we find that ozone is much more common in other parts of the land, and that it is a pollutant, a very serious pollutant in the atmosphere. When ozone comes into contact with the emission from motor-cars and diesel engines, it creates new poisons which have new effects on the human body. This man will be faced with problems of that nature. Perhaps he will have to deal with industrialists when he has no knowledge of the standard he has to work to. He does not know which is the pollutant, and all he can do is to take every industry individually and try to purify its effluents in the best possible way. Imagine the position of this man when he goes to a factory like Saicor at Umkomaas and he says: “You are polluting not only the atmosphere, but the sea with the effluents from your factory” and they find between them that the suitable means, the most practical means is to spend R1,000,000 or R2,000,000 laying a pipeline out to sea; and having completed the pipeline at great cost, an inventor some where in the world suddenly finds a way of using this brown dirty effluent in the manufacture of some valuable substance, so that not only does the factory not require to get rid of it but it becomes so valuable that even with all his facilities for getting rid of it he does not do so. The industrialist will be most unpleasant. We have an example of that at the present time. The answer to coal smoke, which is the worst of the pollutants in regard to visibility, is of course to bum the coal properly, to reduce the coal to its basic content after being completely burnt, plus the ashes which remain behind. Now one of the pollutants which if not the worst, is certainly almost the worst, is sulphur dioxide which is present in most of the coal smoke burnt in this country, so much so, that the mines as a rule try to wash the dust off the coal before they send it away to the factories. Now here is this sulphur dioxide which is a nuisance and an irritant and which the industrialist has been told he must get rid of by building his chimneys to tremendous heights, and even after doing that he is accused of causing harm. But within the last few days we have had the news that in Great Britain they have found a way of so washing the smoke that they recover in the form of ammonium sulphate from four chimneys in Great Britain sufficient ammonium sulphate to supply the whole needs of the country. Imagine what an industrialist will say to this chief officer when after having gone to the expense of building his chimney to a terrific height, he suddenly finds that it is unnecessary. You can therefore appreciate that this man will be faced with great problems. I hope that the hon. the Minister in searching for him will not allow himself to be tied to the Public Service rates of pay, because if he does so, he will be getting a man who will be faced all the time, the rest of his life, with offers of service and offers of employment from large industrialists, and it is unlikely that the hon. the Minister will find a man sufficiently public-minded to carry out this work successfully and remain underpaid in the service.

There are no laboratories in the country equipped at the moment to deal with this work in addition to their other work, and I hope that the hon. Minister will see that this officer is adequately supplied with funds to be able to use the university laboratories where the professors can teach young scientists, young technicians and young technologists how to deal with the problem. Although I am sure it will have to be linked to the C.S.I.R., I hope this will be an independent unit; it should not be under the control of the C.S.I.R. although linked with it; otherwise it will face great difficulties of organization.

Lastly, I want to refer to the diesel fumes for which as far as we can tell now there is no means of preventing them occurring. What is worse, it is doubtful if there are sufficient mechanics in the country to keep the diesel engines already in existence running smoothly and without extra emission of fumes. In other words, the worst form of the internal combustion engine in the country cannot be kept in proper order because there are not enough men to carry out the remedies that are needed. The other question is the nuisance of smell. The nuisance of smell is one of the most insoluble problems; it is difficult to trace, it is always denied by the producer of the smell. There is no way chemically or otherwise of identifying it in most instances, it cannot be painted so that you can see it, and altogether smell presents an intolerable and almost insoluble problem. Many people, myself included, have had to change their homes because of smells which were uncontrollable and un-traceable; for instance the smell from the Harbour in Durban at times cannot be dealt with. These are the problems that this officer will have to deal with, and he must be a great and wonderful man to tackle them.

We have before us a measure of very great importance which we believe can play an enormous part in cleaning the air of the country. The Bill of itself will have no effect unless the administration which is to be set up to deal with the provisions of the Bill is an efficient administration which will tackle the jobs which should be done under this Bill absolutely fearlessly.

I would like to say immediately that I am concerned that many of the major provisions of this Bill will not apply to the State, and I hope that the hon. Minister will see to it that that is not going to mean that whereas private nuisances will be eliminated, those nuisances will not be eliminated in cases where the State is responsible.

I would like to say that I regret that the hon. Minister was not prepared to accept a provision which required that where action is being taken, any mortgagee in respect of the property concerned will be notified. Sir, I have no doubt that a provision to that effect could only help to bring about a more effective measure, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to reconsider that point. I have no doubt whatsoever that if there are conditions existing on premises which require that the provisions of this Act should be applied to those premises, it could only help if there were a provision that apart from the owner being notified, the holder of the mortgage should also be notified, because that mortgagee would then in his own interest take steps to support the efforts of the State to bring about the elimination of the nuisance which exists in respect of the premises concerned. I do very much hope that the hon. the Minister will give very careful reconsideration to this point and that he will possibly deal with it at a later stage. I have no doubt that it would be a step in the right direction and it would lead, as I have said, to more effective and possibly more speedy measures being taken in the case where nuisances already exist. Sir, I am also concerned as to the very important provisions of the Bill which do not apply to the State. I do know that the hon. Minister can take administrative action in that regard, but I do hope that he will give us the assurance that he will not hesitate to insist that the State will be as careful as the citizens of the State are going to be expected to be in preventing the bringing about of conditions which lead to nuisances.

The other point I wish to raise is that I do hope that this Bill, complicated as it is, will be recognized as an important measure which must be brought into full operation at a very early date. I hope that the committee to be appointed, will be appointed very early. I hope that the hon. Minister will give us the assurance that everything possible will be done so to operate the provisions of this Bill as to ensure that the very many unsatisfactory conditions which have grown up, more particularly in our industrial areas, will be dealt with at the very earliest possible moment. I know in my own constituency one condition which was dealt with some years ago, and that is the famous Germiston smell, but it does illustrate the difficulties with which the hon. Minister will be faced in the administration of this Bill. The fact that there was a smell was denied very widely. It took years before responsibility could be fixed. It is true the elimination of that smell was an expensive matter, but by appropriate measures being taken a smell which had been an absolute curse to the inhabitants of that neighbourhood over a very long period of years, was eliminated completely. That is only one case of many which exist in the country where action should be taken and should be taken speedily. I have intervened in the debate at this stage really to stress how very important it is that a strong committee should be appointed, that that committee should be set to work as early as possible, and I hope that the hon. Minister will keep in the closest touch with the work which will be undertaken by that committee, because I believe that the very many unsatisfactory situations which exist in various parts of the country, and which have been referred to in detail in the earlier stages of the debate on this Bill, are of a nature that the public is entitled to expect that they will be tackled early and efficiently, and as it is known that most of them can be cured relatively easily, that appropriate steps will be taken in that regard.

For the sake of emphasis, I also mention another point again, and I express the hope that the hon. Minister will insist with his colleagues that although the Act is not made applicable to anything which is under the control of the State, that in its administration appropriate steps will be taken, because there is no point in eliminating private nuisances if nuisances of the same character can come into effect when the State is the body concerned. I hope that the hon. Minister will deal with the task which Parliament has now placed on his shoulders efficiently and promptly. If he does that and he tackles this matter as a matter of the greatest national importance, then something will be achieved in this country of ours.

Both sides of this House have approved this Bill and there have been some significant amendments, some put in by this side of the House, and it emerges from the Committee Stage an improved Bill. It was very satisfactory to find that there are still matters of common interest to both sides of the House, which made the debate on this Bill a satisfactory experience. The Bill is the first of its kind and it sets the basis for the protective measures which are necessary against air pollution, and no doubt even to-day it cannot be considered as a finished product because circumstances in industry and in town planning are constantly changing, but we can sit back and view the Bill as a very good foundation on which to work for the future.

The next, most important and most difficult step is going to be the application of these regulations which we have now established in this Bill. The Bill gives very wide powers to the Chief Air Pollution Control Officer, to the Committee, to the Appeal Board, and to the Minister himself, and the first difficulty, as emphasized by the hon. member for Durban (Central), will be to find a suitable man for the post of Chief Air Pollution Control Officer. He is the “king-pin” of this Bill. He will have to have a very high grade of scientific qualifications with balanced judgment and special knowledge and technical skill. He has to be a man who is also going to be prepared to face up to factual possibilities and he must be able to see the effects of future industrial development in South Africa. I believe that there are such men in this country who may be able to give this post and this Bill a start, and they may also be able to train younger men, technological and technical experts, who can be trained before the older men retire. I would at this stage advise some caution, if I may, against recruiting a man from abroad to fill this post, because there I would see some difficulties where we have local social conditions which may require a man who is acquainted with our problems, and there is also the fear that someone recruited from abroad may perhaps not stay in the country. But it is important to realize that in this Bill, the guilty parties that are going to cause air pollution are very powerful industrial concerns and also independent bodies, such as the South African Railways and Harbours and others, and the sufferers from the effects of air pollution, from industrial air pollution, are mostly groups of private citizens. The industries have a very closely knit and effective organization to protect their interests; the citizens have to look to this Bill and to the Government for protection. The air pollution caused by motor vehicles in the cities is perhaps a different problem, because there the mass of citizens driving the motor vehicles are the causes as well as the sufferers from motor vehicle pollution. That means that the population more or less has to be protected from itself. This is a difficult and different task for this Bill and for the Government. I mention these aspects of the problems to demonstrate some of the difficulties of the task of enforcing the regulations, and these facts also demonstrate that the Chief Air Pollution Control Officer will have to act with resolution in facing powerful industrialists and the public, and he will have to move with tact in carrying out his duty. Sir, I do not wish to create the impression that industries and industrial organizations are not ready to collaborate, or that they are the principal villains of the piece, but I would like to say that there are some queer twists that can happen in the application of air pollution and I would like to quote two cases that have happened in Western countries, within the last year. Sir, in some Western countries there are people known as smelter-farmers who are run by certain bodies of lawyers of dubious repute, and no sooner is a large-scale metallurgical smelter established, when the farming of products which are known to be sensitive to the adverse effects of dust and gases is started, and after that the smelter companies can be sued for very large damages. I can also give an interesting case that actually took place in the Western hemisphere where local farmers actually in this case claimed damage to their crops that they had planted near a large copper smelter plant.

When these damages were settled they were advised to plant vines because in the case of vines the plant itself, the leaf and the fruit, are not only undamaged by sulphur powder, but sulphur powder is a protective measure. All went well for a number of years until this particular smelter put up a very high chimney which took the fumes higher into the air above the vineyards, whereupon the farmers turned round and sued the company for lack of air pollution. These are cases that can happen.

Now I should like to say a few words about my own amendment, the insertion of the word “cobalt” in the definition. Some confusion might possibly exist as the result of the fact that the dangerous air-polluting element is radio-active cobalt, which is the result only of nuclear fission, which takes place only under exceptional circumstances. But cobalt itself and the ordinary cobalt fumes can be produced by metal refineries, and cobalt is often associated with copper ore. In the Western hemisphere and in the southern part of the African continent there was a cobalt smelter which created chimney waste products. These waste products ate through the chimney itself and ate through the corrugated iron roofs of houses surrounding this particular plant, and also ate through the roofs of cars parked in the vicinity and in the town. This shows what damage cobalt can do to the surroundings. I feel that it is to be hoped that in such cases the National Air Pollution Advisory Committee will act as protectors for some of these individuals. We hope that this Bill will bring home to all sections of society that clean air is a necessity and not a luxury, and it is easier and cheaper to keep the air clean by means of a Bill such as this than to try to remedy the situation when a high degree of air pollution already exists. I therefore join with my colleagues on this side of the House in supporting this Bill. Fortunately it has been introduced at an earlier stage in South Africa than it has been in some overseas countries, and I hope and trust that it will improve South Africa’s progress in the field of clean air.

I think on the occasion of the third reading of this Bill, when we look at the contents and the effects of the Bill, I should like to pass a few comments. We all feel that this Bill, which is particularly welcomed by all sides of the House and the general public outside, will become a milestone in the efforts to obtain clean air and to combat air pollution. I should like to compliment the Select Committee which made a study of this problem and drafted the Bill we have before us to-day. I feel that with the present position of rapid industrialization particular care must be taken with regard to the siting of industries and the effects of residential areas.

In the constituency I represent we experience the effects of air pollution. I want to support the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in regard to the fact that the date upon which this Bill comes into effect is a very important matter. I realize that the study of this problem of air pollution necessitates careful research. However, I note, too, that as far back as 1956 the Durban Corporation appointed a Smoke Abatement Officer and made various efforts to combat the problem of air pollution, so I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some indication in his reply to the debate as to when we might expect this Bill to come into effect. I hope it will be as soon as possible. so that action can be taken, backed by law. against those persons who are causing a great deal of air pollution particularly in the heavily industrialized urban areas. I hope that the promulgation of the regulations provided for in Clause 44 will not be unduly delayed. In the case of certain other Bills that have been passed by this House, we have found that the promulgation of regulations have caused considerable delays before those Bills could be put into effect.

I mentioned that the area I represent is one that has been detrimentally affected by air pollution, and I have studied this Bill to try to see whether its effects will alleviate the present position in that area. I find that one of the main causes of air pollution in that area is due to the close proximity of an industrial area and cargo ships in Durban Bay, as well as the Congela marshalling yards of the S.A. Railways. I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Transport is in the House, because I feel that the nuisance caused in those marshalling yards as the result of shunting is one of the main causes of air pollution in that areas. If we look at Clause 47 of the Bill we see the effects of the Bill as far as the Railway Administration is concerned, and we find that the local authority may cause the Railway Administration to take steps to eliminate or reduce the amount of smoke emitted by locomotives there. Therefore I hope that the Minister will take steps, knowing that public opinion is strongly in favour of the reduction of the amount of smoke in the air, to replace those shunting engines by electric units. I want to mention also the detrimental effect on the residential areas adjacent to these industrial areas. A number of home-owners have found that their properties have depreciated in value due to the nuisance caused by smoke and soot, which has also caused higher maintenance costs for those properties.

Another factor which contributes towards the pollution of the air in that area is the close proximity of the Electricity Supply Commission’s power station in the Congella area. The power station particularly affects the residents of the Umbilo area and other adjoining residential areas, and has done so for many years. Efforts have been made in the past to make representations to the E.S.C. to build higher chimneys, but we found that the building of higher chimneys has merely resulted in the smoke and soot being carried a little further afield from the power station. I mention this point because in Clause 16 of the Bill provision is being made for the approval of plans for the construction of chimneys and the siting of establishments which can cause a nuisance through emitting gases, fumes, grit, dust, etc. This clause may possibly have the effect of achieving better planning and siting of such plants. I should like to ask the Minister to give some indication as to whether there is any provision in this Bill which can bring about the removal of certain existing nuisances in the area. I believe that the effects of this Bill, as the result of the provisions contained in Clause 16. will have an effect on the siting of other installations which have caused nuisances in the past. I find that right throughout the Bill the necessity is emphasized for having close co-operation with the local authorities. However, I have been disturbed at times by the siting of certain types of buildings and establishments by the local authorities in industrial and urban areas. Here I refer to the establishment of an asphalt plant directly opposite a big hospital and in close proximity to a thickly populated residential area. That plant emits a fine-grained dust and if there is a north-easterly wind blowing the residents of that area suffer from this nuisance. One of the effects of Clause 16 of the Bill will be to prevent a recurrence of such nuisances.

Another matter which was raised during the previous stages of the debate was the nuisance created by the fumes emitted by vehicles. That is provided for in Part V of the Bill. Here it appears that unfortunately there are certain local authorities which aggravate this position. I refer to the fact that some local authorities have deemed it necessary to replace electric trolley buses by diesel buses, thereby causing a further aggravation of the already serious situation pertaining in our urban areas. It is hoped that this particular aspect is one which will receive due consideration by local authorities. The feeling against these diesel buses is very strong indeed. In Durban, which unfortunately has the unenviable reputation of having a very high lung cancer death rate, we find that the Durban Anti-Diesel Pollution Society was formed to fight this diesel menace caused by the buses. The findings of this society show that it is not necessarily the dark smoke emitted by these engines which causes the greatest danger and a pollution of the air, but also the light and almost colourless fumes emitted. I hope that with the cooperation of the local authorities the Minister who is responsible for the administration of this Bill will ensure a progressive improvement in regard to air pollution, particularly in the densely populated urban area. In conclusion, I should like to say that when this Bill becomes law it will become a new charter of health which will have been written on the Statute Book of South Africa.

I can well understand the concern expressed by the hon. members for Durban in regard to air pollution caused by smoke, because Durban is unfortunately one of those cities which does not enjoy the blessings we have here in Cape Town but do not always appreciate, viz. the Cape Doctor. There one unfortunately has the position that the smoke sometimes cannot rise above a certain height and when smells emanate from other valleys they flow towards Durban, and Durban has to suffer not only as the result of its own sins but often also as the result of the sins committed in other areas. One has appreciation for the City Council of Durban, which was one of the first municipalities in South Africa which tried to tackle this problem. It found, however, that it was not able to do much towards solving this great problem, because it required greater powers and knowledge than those available to the municipalities. We realize the tremendous danger of all the physical harm which can be caused by smoke, and the harm it does to our health. Therefore I think everybody in this House is agreed that we should do everything in our power to see whether we cannot put a stop to it. But let us not be too optimistic, because we are faced with infinitely great problems. We can easily stop air pollution; we can easily put a stop to the use of all diesel engines and prohibit householders from having coal stoves, but I do not think any intelligent man will favour that. Therefore we must proceed cautiously, step by step, until the problem is eventually solved. Hon. members should regard it in this light. We cannot clean South Africa’s air by waving a magic wand, because the costs would be enormous, but we want to tackle the problem step by step, and eventually we will solve it. If one considers the problems we have as White people in regard to the combustion of coal in our homes, and that according to the scientists we are still doing it wrongly, because the scientists say that we should not make the fire under the wood and the coal, but on top of it, then it will be appreciated how difficult it will be to teach that to the non-Whites. [Interjections.] If we as White people still cannot do it in the correct way, how infinite is the difficulty in regard to the Bantu population. But the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) sketched the position very clearly. He said that it was a custom handed down from generation to generation and one cannot stop it in a few years. If one considers that half the air pollution is caused by the stoves in the houses of Whites and Bantu, it shows how great this problem is. It will not take only a few years to teach those Bantu to live as we do. It may take generations. But I appreciate the emphasis hon. members have laid on this problem. It lies close to the hearts of all of us, because it is gradually beginning to affect us. Just take Pretoria. If one stands at the Union buildings and sees the dense clouds of smoke over the whole of Pretoria in the winter months, then one realized the scope of this problem. The solution of this problem will of course be assisted greatly by this National Committee and also by the Chief Air Pollution Officer. I appreciate the fact that hon. members insist that we should try to get the best possible man, but that is very difficult. It is difficult to know who the best man will be, because the requirements set for such a man are so high. One will need a man who not only has knowledge of one form of industry, but of many industries. He must have knowledge of ordinary ovens and stoves and he must e.g. have knowledge of the manufacture of fertilizers and of various processes of such manufacturing. But at the same time one needs a man of very calm judgment, because it is he who can tell any factory: These steps you are taking are not reasonable. He must judge as to whether they are reasonable or not. He must tell that factory: You must now spend thousands of rands to put a stop to this evil. It will therefore be a person of whom much will be expected, and it is difficult to find such people. But I trust that when we have succeeded in appointing such a person we will already have made great progress towards combating these difficult problems.

I do not want to deal again with the difficulties I referred to in recent debates in regard to bondholders, but I want to assure the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that if it appears that any injustice is done to bondholders I will always be willing to amend the Act. At the moment neither the law advisers nor I can see that it will harm the bondholders in any way, but if the hon. member comes across such cases we will do our best to meet him.

If representations are made to the Minister, will he be prepared to consider them very thoroughly, because I am quite sure that harm will be done?

Yes, but may I put it this way? If any cases occur where it seems that these people are being treated unfairly, we shall try to do something about it. Our whole idea is to be fair, and that also applies to the protection of bondholders.

I do not think there is much more than I can add without repeating the arguments of my colleagues. I am grateful for the support I have received from all sides of the House. I think we all hope that this legislation will make a great contribution to the solution of this problem.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, actually this Bill contains only two clauses. Clause 1 envisages the transfer of certain powers which since 2 December 1958 have been vested in the Great Fish River Irrigation Board to the Department of Water Affairs, and the second clause is the short title. The Great Fish River Irrigation District Adjustment Act is Act No. 46 of 1956, and in terms of Section 14 of that Act the State spent R1,999,200 on building a State dam, viz. the Commando Drift Dam, and the laying of fairly lengthy concrete canals from Lake Arthur for distribution in the area of the Great Fish River Irrigation Board, and in terms of that section the State was obliged to hand over those works to them, and that was done on 2 December 1958. Due to extraordinary conditions which prevailed there for quite a number of years, and which still prevail, the most important of which is the unprecedented and continuous drought, the Board was not able to obtain the necessary revenue and to levy taxes for the additional maintenance, administrative and control costs to maintain the Commando Drift Dam as well as the canals according to the standards laid down by the Department, which are the minimum standards for the maintenance of State works. The result was that in those circumstances there was gradual deterioration and in certain places even of decay, particularly to the canal, which we think is harmful and should not be allowed. Because the Department in those circumstances, if those people are not in a financial position to do it at their own cost, in any case has to step in and do it for them in the national interest, the question arose as to whether we should not take over the control of the Commando Drift Dam and the canals.

Consultations were held with these people and I think that they are grateful that eventually we are taking over a burden resting on their shoulders and duties which they cannot perform properly, and that we are now placing that burden on the shoulders of the State. Together with the taking over of the administration, as well as the maintenance and control in general, it necessarily follows that we now have control over the water in that dam. I want to make it very clear that the intention is not to have dual control now within the same irrigation area in respect of the distribution of water. All we are going to do is what the irrigation board could not hitherto do. At the request we will release just as much water from the Commando Drift Dam, if water is available, into the Tarka River and into the Lake Arthur Dam to be conserved there or to be distributed there by the board as they have always done. We will make provision on our ordinary annual Estimates of Expenditure for the money we require to do this maintenance properly. In terms of the Consolidated Water Act of 1956, the Minister has the right to levy rates, and we usually do so with very great discretion, taking into consideration the water received by the various areas under State Water Control from such State water projects, and consequently there need be no fear and in fact there is no justifiable fear on the part of any of the irrigators or the Irrigation Board that the Department of Water Affairs, now that it is taking over control, will be unreasonable in regard to levying water rates in that area. This area is a heavily drought-stricken area. The State was compelled, in spite of the existing water works and conservation dams existing in that area, to spend millions of rands on buying out owners in that area because they could not make a decent living as irrigation farmers. We scheduled that land in order to give those who remained a little more land. Peculiarly enough—one regrets to have to say so—this addition of land made hardly any difference. As the result of climatic conditions, the rainfall and the flow of water into the dams, the people there in spite of this gesture on the part of the Government, and this relief we granted, find it very difficult to make a living as irrigation farmers. Consequently we are ready to assume that this Bill will not only be supported but will be welcomed by both sides of the House.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that he has introduced this Bill in the nick of time. We on this side of the House will support the Bill. We realize, of course, how necessary it is that valuable State works should be maintained, and if the irrigation board concerned is unable to do so because of circumstances prevailing in that area—and we are sorry that those people find themselves in that situation—then it is in the interests of the State and in the interests of the irrigators that steps be taken to ensure the proper maintenance of those works. I understand that the irrigation board was notified two years ago that the State would possibly take over these works or rather their maintenance, and I understand that thereafter they heard nothing further about this matter until the Bill was published in the Government Gazette. I think it would have been better if, instead of learning this from the Government Gazette, they had been informed beforehand that it was the Department’s intention to take over the maintenance of these works. I do not know whether that is correct, but I understand that that is the position. We also heard that the board wished to send a deputation to the Minister to discuss certain matters with him. I do not know whether it was in relation to this Bill but I must assume that they are satisfied now with the taking over of the control. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some further information as to what this deputation wanted. With these few words, Sir, we support this Bill.

I do not suppose that it is my task to reply to the questions put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) with regard to the deputation who wished to come and see the Minister in connection with the passing of this Bill as well as certain other matters that they wanted to discuss with the Minister, but I can say for the hon. member’s information that a deputation from the Great Fish River Irrigation Board did visit Cape Town, that they saw the Minister with regard to the passing of this Bill and that they also discussed other problems of the irrigators in the Great Fish River Valley with him, and that the deputation expressed their thanks both to us who as their representatives led that delegation and to the Minister for the reception accorded to them by the Minister and also for the assurance that they received from him that the sole object in passing this Bill was to benefit the Great Fish River Valley.

I should also like to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the irrigators of the Great Fish River Valley. I just want to refer to the fact that as a result of drought conditions, the buying up of a large tract of land for irrigation there, a step which we thought would make more water available to the rest of the irrigators, did not really make a substantial difference to the irrigators of that area. Hon. members will notice if they walk into the Lobby and look at the notice on the notice boards indicating how much water there is in the conservation dams throughout the country, that for some considerable time past the Graas Ridge Dam has had no water and that the irrigators in that area have been unable to irrigate for some months. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the canal which was built there, the Scanlan Canal, from Lake Arthur to Scanlan, for the maintenance of which this Bill now makes provision, took away 3,000 morgen below Grass Ridge Dam, 3,000 morgen which can be irrigated and is in fact irrigated from Lake Arthur and from the Commando Drift Dam. It is, of course, a great relief to the owners of those 3,000 morgen that now at least they will be able to get water from Lake Arthur and from the Commando Drift Dam, which has had a supply of water over the past few years and which at the moment still has 22 per cent of its full supply. But as far as the remaining portion of the Grass Ridge irrigation area is concerned, no relief is being provided for irrigators there, and this measure, of course, does not bring them any relief either. The hon. the Minister has also referred to the fact that the Great Fish River irrigation board has not been in a position to undertake the necessary maintenance of the Scanlan Canal and of the Commando Drift Dam. I want to point out that with the little water at their disposal, they have to make use of the supply of brackish water which runs down the river; this small quantity of brackish water which they lead into their canals creates enormous problems. This brackish water strongly encourages the growth of water grasses in the canals, with the result that great expense has to be incurred in keeping the canals clear so that when flood waters come down or when water is released from the dams the canals will be able to hold adequate supplies. We want to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister for the fact that the Government will now be shouldering the responsibility for maintaining the Commando Drift Dam and the Scanlan Canal, particularly in view of the high maintenance costs which have to be incurred in keeping the canals clear. I want to ask, however, that the hon. the Minister’s Department should assist us in connection with further research into the extermination of water grasses.

Before I resume my seat there is just one question that I want to put to the hon. the Minister concerning the distribution of water. Hitherto the Great Fish River irrigation board has undertaken the distribution of all water from the Commando Drift Dam as well as from Lake Arthur. An irrigation area has now been developed between Commando Drift and Lake Arthur, an area which, of course, will have to be given compensatory water from the Commando Drift Dam and which formerly had the use of flood waters only, but the irrigation in that area, if my information is correct, was also regulated by the Great Fish River Irrigation Board. The hon. the Minister says that he will now release water from the Commando Drift Dam into Lake Arthur to be distributed from there by the Great Fish River Irrigation Board itself. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to undertake the distribution from Commando Drift to Lake Arthur or whether the Great Fish River Irrigation Board will still have the right to undertake the distribution itself. I just want to say that I think it would only be fair if the Great Fish River Irrigation Board could undertake the whole of the distribution, including the distribution of water from Commando Drift up to Lake Arthur. As far as the irrigators there are concerned, I can give the hon. the Minister and his Department the assurance that we wholeheartedly welcome this Bill and that the irrigators are grateful for the fact that time and again when they have approached the Minister and the Department with a problem, they have always received the sympathetic support of the Minister and his Department.

Two questions have been put to me, one by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). That has already partially, or almost wholly, been replied to by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). About two years ago or a little less the then Irrigation Board was informed, through their chairman and a deputation which accompanied him, of the intention of the Department and they then welcomed it, but people fall away, as often happens, and new members are elected. Two chairmen of the Irrigation Board died shortly one after another, and consequently there is a new chairman and also new members of the board. They were not quite aware of the position. We did not, of course, consider it necessary again to tell them how good our intentions were, because we were still dealing with the same board. I believe that if one emphasizes too much the good one does for people, it, to some extent, detracts from the gratitude and thanks one gets later. The Department did not seek gratitude and thanks and therefore they were not again notified of our intentions. But the matter was remedied when they asked for an interview. I granted them an interview and I am quite justified in assuming that I have the full support of the whole board and, I think, of all the irrigators in regard to this measure.

In regard to the question put to me by the hon. member for Somerset East in respect of the irrigation area between Commando Drift and Lake Arthur, I am glad he put that question, because now I can remove any semblance of doubt which may still exist. I did in fact say that we would release water from the Commando Drift Dam, only at the request of the Irrigation Board, and because the main distribution really takes place from Lake Arthur in the Scanlan Canal I want to state very clearly that the Department does not want to concern itself with the distribution, the control and the functions which hitherto have been in the hands of the Great Fish River Valley Irrigation Board. These things can remain precisely the same, whether it now takes place between the dams or below the dams.

I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill proposes to amend just one section of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act of 1961 by the deletion of certain words, but I should like to point out that the subsection from which it is now proposed to delete certain words—Section 14 (2) (a)—contains one of the most important provisions of the Act.

In brief, the provisions of this sub-section amount to this that a commission agent who receives perishable agricultural produce from a farmer or any other principal for sale on the municipal markets must pay the principal within seven days after the sale of the produce unless the commission agent and the principal have agreed otherwise in writing.

It is now proposed to do away with the proviso that the parties may agree in writing that payment may be effected later than seven days after the sale. It amounts to this that the new sub-section will provide that payment must be made without exception within seven days. I want to point out this is the most important principle in the whole Bill. This amendment has also been fully discussed and considered and accepted by the National Markets’ Advisory Council.

The security which a commission agent has to furnish in terms of Section 18 of the Act and in terms of the regulations framed under the Act is designed to make things as easy as possible for him, and it was therefore based on a week’s turnover, hence the provision that payment must be made within one week. This means that if a commission agent goes insolvent, his principal ought to suffer no damage if he has discharged all his obligations towards his principal week by week as prescribed in the Act. Experience has shown, however, that with the provision for exceptions to the rule that principals must be paid within seven days, the security which only covers a turnover of seven days is always inadequate in those cases where payment has not been made within seven days and that principals who have insisted on payment within seven days, in order to protect themselves, have been at the short end of the stick. It amounts to this, a principal who tries to protect himself by insisting upon payment within seven days, is prejudicially affected by other principals who do not insist on it.

Moreover, the onus rests on the State, where prosecutions are instituted, to prove that there is no written agreement between the agent and the principal, and this means that principals who have sent produce for sale to an agent and have not received payment within seven days, have to be subpoenaed to come from various parts of the Republic and give evidence in the court of the magistrate in whose district the business of the principal is situated.

In those cases where departmental inspectors ascertained from the books of agents that payment was not made within seven days and where the agent was unable to produce a written agreement to that effect, public prosecutors were not able to institute prosecutions because the principal had to appear in court to testify that there was no such agreement, because the agent might have mislaid the written permission or he might not have received it yet. Attempts have been made in the past to obtain affidavits from principals who, according to the books of agents, have not received payment within seven days, but they simply do not respond, presumably because they do not want to disturb the relationship between principals and agents. There was a case where a producer personally complained that he had not received payment from his agent. It was pointed out to him that he could make a sworn statement so that the agent could be prosecuted, but he refused, even in the presence of the police, to make such a statement and preferred to drop the case. His only reason was that he did not want to prosecute the agent.

The Department has inspectors who pay regular visits to commission agents and the scope of the machinery has been made sufficiently wide to ensure compliance with the provisions of the proposed section of the Act.

The effect of the proposed amendment will be (a) that the security furnished by commission agents will as far as possible meet the purpose for which it was instituted; (b) that principals will not suffer unnecessary harm through no fault of their own and (c) that it will be possible to institute prosecutions immediately without having to adduce evidence.

Firstly, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the introduction of his first Bill into this House. I want to assure him that in all cases where he introduces measures which are in the interests of agriculture he will have the support of this side of the House.

We also want to assure him that if he introduces measures which are not in the interests of agriculture we shall fight him, and moreover, we want to assure him that if he neglects to introduce measures which are in the interests of agriculture, he will be very severely criticized. This Bill is one which we will support. It is a Bill which we maintain is in the interests of agriculture, in the interests of the producers. We think that seven days is ample time for the agent to pay in the money. It certainly reduces to a very small margin the losses which producers may suffer, and I think that this is certainly a step in the right direction. We have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

May I thank the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) for his support of this Bill and at the same time assure him that I will welcome any fight in the interests of the farming community, and criticism will also be very welcome if it is in the interests of the farming community. Again I want to thank him for supporting this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The South African Shipping Board Act, as hon. members are aware, provides that the Board shall consist of six members who are entitled to vote, three of whom have to be appointed by the State President, while the other three are appointed by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Federated Chambers of Industries and the S.A. Agricultural Union respectively, with this proviso, however, that not one of the six members may be a public servant or a person in the employ of any shipping company. The Act also provides that an additional three members may be appointed who may be public servants or Railway officials but who have no right to vote. We do not know why this provision was inserted in the Act at the time, and the 1929 Hansard reports on the debate which took place on the present Act do not throw much light on this matter either. The Government now finds it necessary to appoint a new chairman for the S.A. Shipping Board and it also considers it necessary to appoint an official for that purpose. I just want to tell the House that the idea is, as in the past, to appoint the new chairman of Board of Trade and Industries to serve as chairman of the S.A. Shipping Board as well. The official concerned is a public servant, and in order to make this appointment possible this Bill now provides that one of the six members appointed may be a public servant. This will then make it possible for us to appoint a member as well as a chairman from the ranks of the Public Service.

That is the most important amendment contained in this Bill. The second amendment is only designed to make it possible, in the absence of the chairman, to appoint an acting chairman. No such provision exists in the Act at present.

This side of the House sees no reason why public servants should not be members of the Shipping Board, and for that reason we support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Explosives Act provides at present that the chief inspector and all other inspectors of explosives, except those inspectors who may be appointed by the Minister of Economic Affairs for ad hoc investigations, must be appointed by the State President. This procedure whereby the chief inspectors and other inspectors are appointed by the State President is a very cumbersome and time-consuming one. The position here is that the chief official, the Secretary of the Department, is appointed in terms of the ordinary Public Service rules, but that a subordinate official has to be appointed by the State President. This is a time-consuming and cumbersome procedure. This Bill now provides that the chief inspector as well as other inspectors will be appointed in terms of the ordinary Public Service procedure and that ad hoc inspectors will be appointed by the Secretary for Commerce and Industries.

Clause 1 (2) of this measure is of a purely consequential nature. Clause 2 really rectifies an error. The principal Act provides at present that nobody may handle explosives unless he is in possession of a permit or unless he works under the continual supervision of somebody who has such a permit. Until 1951, when the principal Act was amended to a considerable extent, there was a further legal provision that an inspector of explosives could refuse to issue a permit unless he was satisfied as to the competency of an applicant to work with explosives and/or that it was really necessary to use explosives for a particular purpose. This provision was omitted from the Act in error in 1951, and in view of the fact that this oversight has frequently embarrassed the Explosives Division, the House is now being asked to approve of the re-incorporation of this provision in the Act.

Clause 3 contains no principle and merely adapts the wording of the principle Act to South Africa’s changed constitutional position.

This Bill has already been through the Other Place and both sides approved of it. We are now acting as a House of review and we can see no reason for effecting any alterations to the Bill; it has our full support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill consists for the greater part of clauses which seek to bring the Act into line with South Africa’s legal position and her present coinage system. There are only three clauses really thich are important and which I shall explain to the House. Clauses 3 and 5 provide for increased fines and penalties for contraventions of the Act. The necessity for this arises from the fact that the fines provided for at present, in the light of present-day monetary values, do not have the desired deterrent effect. We find that in spite of the penalties which are provided for, offenders in the fishing industry display a measure of impudence and still carry on with their unlawful activities. That is why we now propose to increase the penalties.

The first clause in which we propose to bring about an amendment, Clause 1, contains another important principle. Hon. members are aware of the fact that we have had to contend in recent times with the problem that quite a number of foreign fishing vessels have been fishing in our waters and that the Government has already taken various steps to protect our fishing waters against infiltration by foreign fishing vessels. Hon. members will recall that in 1963 Parliament passed the Territorial Waters Act which extended our territorial waters to six miles and provided for a fishing zone extending up to 12 nautical miles from low-water mark.

Hon. members are also aware of the fact that the Government recently introduced a more effective and more intensive fishing patrol and inspection service. We find, however, that it is necessary to take further steps. The Government has now decided in accordance with existing international law principles to introduce legislation to deny foreign ships the right of access to South African commercial harbours, that is to say, railway harbours as well as fishing harbours, under certain circumstances as laid down in the various clauses. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, has already introduced a Bill in this connection as far as commercial harbours are concerned, and the insertion of the provision which I now suggest with reference to sea fisheries is merely designed to incorporate this authorization in our Statute Book as far as fishing harbours are concerned.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the proposed provisions are of a permissive character. It would not mean, for example, where the Minister, in terms of the proposed new paragraph (g) (i), has promulgated a notice to the effect that fishing boats belonging to a certain country or people of a certain nationality may be denied access to South African fishing harbours, that that power is going to be applied summarily to all boats belonging to that country. Every case will be considered on its merits, and in cases of sickness, repairs, normal business activities, etc., access will not be forbidden to the boats of the country concerned.

In the light of the explanation which I have given the House, I trust that hon. members will agree with me that every reasonable step that we can possibly take to protect an industry which is of great importance to the Republic and to South West Africa is justified, and I hope that hon. members will support this motion.

This side of the House supports this legislation for the reasons which have already been set out by the hon. the Minister and which I do not propose to repeat. During the Committee Stage we will move certain minor amendments in connection with some of the penal provisions. For the rest we support this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Section 3 (2) of the Companies Act, 1926, at present provides that the Registrar of Companies and all other officials directly concerned with the implementation of the Companies Act must be appointed by the State President. All officials in the Public Service, as I explained in dealing with a previous Bill, from the highest to the lowest ranks, are appointed simply in terms of the Public Service Act. In this case too the position is that the official in charge of the Department is appointed under the provisions of the Public Service Act while subordinate officials are appointed by the State President. We feel that this procedure is cumbersome and time-consuming and this Bill now provides that in the future the Registrar of Companies will no longer be appointed by the State President but in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act.

We have no objection to this Bill. We agree with the hon. the Minister that the appointment of the Registrar of Companies and his staff should rightly fall under the hon. the Minister and not under the State-President. We therefore support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

During the past few years my Department has on various occasions received representations for the amendment of the Hire Purchase Act, 1942, from organized trade and commerce, from individual businesses and persons and also from magistrates. These representations emanate from certain defects and ambiguities in the Act which have become apparent in the course of time, and which have caused commerce so much trouble that to an increasing extent they are seeking refuge in instalment sale agreements which falls outside the scope of the Act. Very often conditions are imposed in this sort of transaction which are not always in the buyer’s favour. In so doing, the protection granted by the Act to the buying public is often evaded, and the credit control objects of the Act are also defeated.

The Bill now before the House is aimed at eliminating these defects in the Act and trying to facilitate and improve its working. Some of the proposed amendments contained in the Bill are self-explanatory and need no explanation or comment from me. I shall therefore confine myself to those proposed amendments containing certain new principles, which therefore necessitate clarification or motivation by me.

As I have already said, the objects of the existing Act are increasingly being defeated by the fact that sales are made in commerce which do not fall within the scope of the present legal provisions. Quite clearly, it would be impossible to bring all types of sales on instalments within the scope of the Act; but as against that I nevertheless feel that the scope of the Act should be extended in order to subject to the provisions of the Act certain types of open account transactions which are not covered by the Act at present. This is the first important principle contained in the Bill in regard to which I should briefly like to say something.

The Act in its present form applies to (i) hire-purchase agreements and (ii) instalment sale agreements in terms of which the seller is entitled to repossess the goods sold if the buyer does not fulfill his obligations in terms of this type of contract. In practice, however, it has often happened that instalment sale agreements have been entered into which do not give the seller the right to repossess the goods sold if the buyer defaults, but which in fact prohibits the buyer from alienating or pledging the goods sold before the purchase price is paid. This type of transaction therefore did not fall within the scope of the Act and also represents an important method by means of which the objects of the Act are defeated. A further method of evading the provisions of the Act was brought to my notice after the publication of this amending Bill, after its first reading. It is, namely, the inclusion of a provision in the contract that the full purchase price becomes payable if the buyer alienates or pledges the goods before the full purchase price has been paid. I consequently decided to bring within the provisions of the Act also contracts containing this provision, and have already given notice of the amendment which I intend moving in the Committee Stage in this regard.

An amendment of the Act is therefore now being proposed which will also bring transactions of this nature within the scope of the Act. This type of transaction gives the seller practically the same amount of protection as contracts by which goods are sold whilst the ownership of the goods is retained by the seller, and which are therefore covered by the existing provisions of the Act. As against that, the buyer does not enjoy any of the protections provided for in the Act, because the aforementioned transactions are not covered by the Act. In practice it has also been found that this type of transaction often contains conditions which are expressly prohibited by the Hire Purchase Act such as, e.g. forfeiture actions which may have dire consequences for buyers. In addition the efficacy of the Act as a credit controlling measure, as I have already said, is undermined to an appreciable extent by transactions of this nature. For the same reasons an amendment of the Act is being proposed which provides that, if circumstances in particular cases demand it, contracts in terms of which the purchase price of the goods sold exceed R4,000 can also be brought withing the ambit of the Act. The Act at present applies only to contracts not exceeding R4,000, and by making it possible for the Minister to include contracts exceeding R4,000 also in the provisions of the Act, the scope of the Act is widened further.

A second amendment containing new principles is in connection with the present provision which empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs completely to exclude from the provisions of the Act contracts now falling within the provisions of the Act. This power granted to the Minister by the Act is now being extended so that it will now be possible for him to grant exemptions in respect of any of the requirements of the Act, whilst the protection afforded to the buyer by the other provisions of the Act is being preserved.

In addition, the exemption provisions of the Act are now also being extended to make it possible for the Minister to exempt the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Coloured Development Corporation from any or all of the provisions of the Act. These two corporations are experiencing serious problems in cases where the Hire Purchase Act applies to transactions between them and the persons who are being assisted by them. The persons concerned are often unable to comply with the requirements of the Hire Purchase Act and consequently have to make use of other and more expensive methods of financing than those which would have been available to them under hire-purchase contracts.

A third provision in the Bill which should be mentioned specially is the amendment now being introduced in the method of calculating the deposit on goods sold in terms of instalment contracts. The existing method according to which the deposit on the purchase price is calculated is fairly complicated. The result is that sellers may easily make mistakes in the calculations, whilst buyers mostly find it impossible to calculate precisely what amount should be paid as a deposit on an article. Because contracts may be invalid if too small deposits are taken, this matter is of great importance to sellers. They have therefore pointed out that if a buyer wants to rid himself of an instalment contract for some reason, he starts searching for mistakes of this kind which, if such mistakes are ascertained, offers him the opportunity of having the contract declared invalid by the courts. The argument has also been advanced that the inconvenience sellers have to suffer in this respect contributes to a considerable extent to the present tendency on their part rather to sell on open account which, as I have already said, is often not in the interest of the buyers and also derogates from the use of this Act as a credit control measure.

For these reasons it has been decided to amend the provisions of the Act in regard to the method of calculating deposits so that the deposit may in future be calculated on the cash price of the goods sold instead of on the purchase price. Because there is at present a lack of clarity in regard to the legal position when deposits are paid by cheque and such cheque is referred back to the drawer, it is now being provided expressly that a contract will not be valid before the cheque has been paid.

In addition, in this Bill a concession is being made in respect of the compliance with the formal requirements of the Act. As the Act stands at present, contracts must strictly comply with the requirements that the cash price of the goods should be indicated in the contract. As against that, however, only general compliance with the other formal requirements prescribed by the Act for such a contract is required, provided that nobody will be harmed by the failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Act. The Act is now being amended so that compliance in the main, with the aforementioned proviso, will apply also in respect of the first-mentioned provision.

At the same time the sanctions at present applying to the formal requirements of the Act are being appreciably relaxed. The provisions that the seller forfeits his right of possession, or his right to reclaim the goods sold if the formal requirements of the Act, with which the contract must comply, are not strictly adhered to, and that the purchase price may be reduced if the cash price is not indicated in the contract, are being replaced by a penal provision which the seller can avoid if he, on the balance of probabilities, is able to prove in court that neither the buyer nor anybody else has been harmed by his failure strictly to comply with the formal requirements.

Fifthly, a provision is being inserted in the Act to make it possible for buyers and sellers to replace by other goods, without entering into a new contract, goods which were sold on the instalment system, or part of such goods. This amendment is being introduced because the existing provision can be interpreted in such a way that the contract would be invalid, if the original goods are replaced. If this interpretation were to be correct, the seller would not be able to replace damaged or defective goods sold on the instalment plan unless a new contract is entered into.

Sixthly, the provisions of the Act in regard to the information which the parties to a contract have to give to each other are being amended so that it will be easier for the seller, when the buyer remains in default and does not fulfill his contract obligations, to ascertain where the goods sold are.

The existing provisions in this regard are quite inadequate to protect the interests of the seller, particularly in cases where the buyer disappears or illegally disposes of the goods. It is often found that the seller, after having incurred costs in tracing the buyer, has no means of ascertaining from him where the goods are, whilst messengers of the court often have to bring back orders of court to the seller because the goods cannot be traced. In many cases buyers also hide goods when it comes to their knowledge that an order of court for the return of the goods has been obtained, or they hand the goods over to friends and the seller then has no legal means of obtaining information from such persons. It was therefore felt that an amendment of the Act to protect the seller’s interests in this respect was essential, because sellers may suffer serious losses in terms of the existing provision.

The penalties which may be imposed in the case of failure on the part of parties to a contract to give each other the prescribed information are also being increased. In addition, the withholding of information by persons who had possession of the goods sold during the existence of the contract is also made punishable in order to ensure the effective operation of the amended provisions.

I should also add that the Act demands that the seller should give notice to the buyer before instituting any litigation against the latter in respect of a contract entered into in terms of the Act. If the buyer fails to notify the seller of changes of address, it is very difficult for the seller to serve the required notice on the buyer. It was therefore found necessary to introduce an amendment to the Act so that the seller can serve notice on the buyer of an action by addressing a registered letter to him at his las-known residential or business address. Such notice will then serve as sufficient proof that the required notice has been served on the buyer and will enable the seller to issue summons if the buyer does not in the meantime settle the debt for which he is being summonsed, or comes to some arrangement with the seller.

In the seventh place, the Act is being amended to provide for an increase in the percentage of interest to be repaid to the buyer if he repays his debt incurred in terms of an instalment contract before the agreed date of expiry thereof. My Department often receives complaints to the effect that whereas a high rate of interest is charged on the amount of credit extended in instalment transactions, the rebate of interest paid to the buyer if he pays the debt before due date is comparatively negligible. Often buyers expect, in the case of accelerated payment of the purchase price, a proportional amount of the finance charges to be repaid to them. There are, however, various factors which make the repayment of a proportional part of the finance charges impossible. The charges in connection with a contract are, e.g., not reduced by accelerated payment. Many contracts are also discounted. In such a case the cessionary receives only portion of the total finance charges and therefore he cannot be expected to repay a proportional part of the total charges to the buyer who makes an accelerated repayment. It seems fair, however, that the rates at which interest is originally charged, and those at which rebates for accelerated payments are calculated, should be brought more into line with one another. It has therefore been decided to increase from 5 per cent to 7½ per cent the rate of interest per annum which the buyer can claim on making an accelerated payment.

In the eighth place, the Bill contains a provision in terms of which it will be made possible for the buyer, with the consent of the seller, to return to the seller a portion of the goods he bought in terms of an instalment contract, whilst the value of the goods returned will then be set off against the outstanding balance in terms of the contract. It often happens that a buyer, due to changed circumstances, cannot fulfill his obligations in terms of an instalment contract. In terms of the existing provisions of the Act, the buyer must return to the seller all the goods sold if he wants to terminate the contract, whereas it might possibly be to the advantage of both the buyer and the seller if portion of the goods can be returned and the instalments reduced accordingly.

In the ninth place, the Act is being amended to provide that the one party must give notice to the other ten days beforehand if he wants to apply to the magistrate’s court for the appointment of an appraiser, and also give the other party the right to dispute the first party’s nominee or to obtain another nomination. The fact that the existing Act contains no such provisions causes much difficulty in practice in cases where the parties to a contract have to go to court for the appointment of an appraiser. In connection with the appointment of appraisers, I must also mention that a provision is being inserted in the Act whereby the nomination of an appraiser in a contract is prohibited. This provision is necessary in view of the fact that it is generally the seller who draws up the contract and therefore his nominee is also generally accepted because the buyer is not always aware of the consequences which may flow from such nomination when he enters into an instalment contract. It is therefore regarded as undesirable that the appraiser should be appointed in the contract already.

In the tenth place, it should be mentioned in connection with the valuation of goods that it is not always in the best interests of the buyer that goods he has purchased in terms of an instalment contract should be sold by public auction when the seller attaches it. Therefore provision is being made in the Bill for the insertion of a provision in the Act in terms of which the court will only order that the goods concerned be sold by public auction if it is doubtful as to the approximate value of the goods.

In the 11th place, a provision has been included in the Bill which makes it possible for the buyer and the seller obtains the return of the goods sold on instalments, that such order of court will not be executed. In such a case the contract will continue as if no such order of court had been obtained, and the seller may receive payment from the buyer. If, however, no agreement is entered into between the two parties, the seller must repay to the buyer within 14 days any instalments paid by the buyer after such order of court has been obtained. However, after publication of the Bill and after the first reading, I received representations to extend the period of 14 days to 30 days, because sellers, due to practical circumstances, will not always be able to make these repayments within a fortnight. I decided to accede to this request, and I have already given notice that I will move an amendment in the Committee Stage to extend the period from 14 to 30 days. This provision is being inserted because there are sellers who, if buyers fall into arrears with their instalments, obtain an order of court for the return of the goods sold, do not execute that repossession order and then threaten the buyer that unless he pays his instalments regularly the order will be executed. Such action on the part of judgment creditors is unreasonable.

Furthermore, an amendment to the Act is being proposed in regard to summonses which makes it possible for the seller, if he issues a summons in a case in connection with or emanating from an instalment contract, to insert a notice in such summons whereby anyone who knows about it is prohibited from using the goods or from removing them from where they are. This concession to sellers is necessary because buyers often deliberately damage the goods sold after a summons has been issued, or remove the goods from where they are usually kept, so that the messenger of the court cannot attach them.

Finally, provision is being made in the Bill that the seller can summons the buyer in the court most convenient to him if the buyer has not notified the seller of his change of address. I have already pointed out that the existing provisions in regard to the furnishing of information by the buyer to the seller are not satisfactory in practice, and that the seller often suffers serious damage as the result of the failure of the buyer to fulfill his obligations in terms of an instalment contract.

I am convinced that the provisions of the Bill now before the House will to a large extent eliminate the defects in the Hire Purchase Act to which I have referred in my explanatory statement. I may just add that the Bill has been drafted in close co-operation with the financing business and commercial organizations in our country and that so far as my Department is aware its introduction enjoys the full support of all the aforementioned interested parties. I also want to express my sincere thanks to all the interested groups who assisted in formulating this Bill for the valuable assistance they gave to my Department.

The Minister has given an extremely exhaustive and lucid explanation of the meaning of the clauses of this Bill, which are common sense clauses and with which we are in entire agreement. I therefore do not propose to speak at length on this matter. There has been considerable criticism in recent years of the present position under which both an unscrupulous buyer and an unscrupulous seller have been driving horses and carts through the Act. This Bill goes a very long way to deal with these people and their practices, and the implementation of the Act is going to make the handling in practice of hire-purchase agreements much easier in future and it will also remove a considerable amount of unnecessary paperwork. This Bill has come timeously, because hire-purchase agreements are becoming more and more important in our daily life, affecting more and more people and perhaps one can say that this legislation is already a little bit overdue. The Bill is quite a long one and this side of the House is grateful to the Department for the explanatory memorandum issued by them. Without such a memorandum, it would have been a difficult task to study the Bill and to go into all the details. As the hon. Minister has said, no interested party has raised any objection whatever to the Bill, apart from those dealt with by the hon. Minister in respect of which he has given notice of amendments to Clause 1 and Clause 17, both of which have our blessing. Therefore the Bill has the fullest support of this side of the House, but naturally we will have something to say in Committee on some of the clauses, and we hope that the Minister will, if necessary, keep in view future developments, and if necessary come with further amendments.

I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) that his side of the House supports this measure. I think this measure is welcomed throughout the country because it has become necessary to smarten up considerably the control over the hire-purchase system. But I want to say a few words in connection with one matter and that is the considerable extent to which the law governing hire purchase is being evaded, circumvented, in this country. That is to some extent covered by this Bill but I do think that the majority of sales which ought to be hire-purchase transactions are not yet covered thus bringing them within the ambit of this measure. That is where my great difficulty lies. I do not know whether the hon. member can think of some plan in this regard. In actual fact the position these days is that people no longer buy an article on hire purchase; they approach one of the deposit-receiving institutions and borrow cash; they get a few people to sign as surety or they cede some assets as surety to the institution concerned and they pay cash for the article. But the interest they have to pay is the same as they would have had to pay under the hire-purchase contract, and in some cases even higher. My difficulty is that this interest is unfortunately not controlled by the Usury Act. They draw up the contract in such a way that it does not come under the Usury Act because Section 14 (4) of the Usury Act provides: Nothing in this Act contained other than the provisions of Section 5 shall apply to or in respect of any commercial transaction to which a moneylender is not a party.

This is the way in which people are circumventing the Hire Purchase Act. Apart from that, where I am asking the Minister in the first place to include hire-purchase agreements under the Usury Act I also want to ask him to ensure that transactions, in which money has been borrowed in order to pay cash for the article, should be brought in, some way or other, as transactions in respect of which money has been indirectly advanced actually to finance hire-purchase transactions and that at least the interest the people have to pay should fall under the Usury Act. I think if the existing position continues the hire-purchase system in South Africa will gradually become of lesser importance because people are more and more adopting this procedure of borrowing money from institutions practically on a hire-purchase basis. They then purchase the article from the business and it is impossible to apply the Hire Purchase Act. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to this difficulty. I do not want to go into it in detail although one could discuss it for hours, Sir. I am only mentioning the problem.

I have a certain sympathy with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) in regard to the problem he has posed, but I do not think it rightly falls under a hire-purchase Bill such as we are now considering, because in effect, although these amounts are being borrowed and utilized to purchase goods which normally would fall within the ambit of hire purchase, there is no hire-purchase contract; it is a straight, rightout loan and the funds are then being used to purchase goods. The hon. the Minister, or his colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, may decide in their wisdom that it is necessary to tighten up the conditions in respect of lending, but I do not think that this is appropriate to this Bill.

The hon. Minister has given us his 11 commandments in regard to the new hire-purchase legislation, and, as has already been said from this side of the House, they are welcomed by us because these new provisions provide protection both for the buyer and the seller and at the same time they provide additional obligations on the buyer and the seller. The change in the definition of instalment sale agreements will bring two new categories within the ambit of the Bill (that is after the hon. Minister’s amendment is duly passed) and is welcomed by us, because in effect these two types of selling, if not hire-purchase selling are very parallel, and the buyer and the seller both need the protection of the provisions of the new amended Hire Purchase Act. We also agree with the hon. Minister in regard to the introduction of the provisions of Section 2bis because we feel these are necessary to enable the Minister to implement the spirit that is behind the Bill before us. The provisions which now allow a buyer and a seller by agreement to exchange goods which fall under hire-purchase agreement is long overdue and is very welcome. This particular provision, or the lack of this provision, has given commerce a great deal of trouble in the past and the fact that by arrangement between buyer and seller goods can be freely interchanged and still allow hire-purchase agreements to remain in force, is a very welcome and necessary provision. It is something that has been wanted for a long time and we are very glad to see it.

The position regarding the appointment of appraisers I think is also a step in the right direction. It will make for greater ease in valuations and the settlement of disputes as between buyer and seller, which is really part of the functions of this Bill. Similarly the provisions regarding the change of address of a buyer and the fact that the issue of a summons may now act as an interdict and so prevent the buyer from removing or damaging goods, will assist greatly in controlling the activities of the unscrupulous buyer. I should imagine the hon. Minister must have experienced some difficulty when he decided to reduce the initial deposit to 10 per cent of the cash price, because I think he will be the first to agree that this is somewhat inflationary; it means that in future the buyer, instead of having to pay 10 per cent of the total price, which could include the cash price, interest payments, and in the case of motorcars such things as licensing, insurance and so forth, the deposit will now be considerably lower. It will mean that the buyer can now purchase under a hire-purchase agreement with a smaller deposit. I think commerce and industry would have preferred not to have this in the Bill from the point of view that they would prefer a larger deposit. I think, however, that the hon. Minister is correct when he says that in the past numbers of errors have cropped up in calculations which have invalidated agreements. The provision is therefore acceptable. A provision for which buyers will be very grateful is the one which prevents the seller from getting a court order, not putting it into effect, but utilizing it as a sort of a hold over a buyer to get him to fulfill his obligations. In the case of the unscrupulous seller this had given him a provision by which he was almost in a position to blackmail a buyer, and we are glad to see this removed.

In general we are glad that the Bill has been introduced. It has been on the stocks for some considerable time now; it has the approval of the parties that are interested, and, as the hon. member for Benoni has said, we hope that the hon. Minister in the light of the information that he will get and the experience he will gain as a result of this new Bill, will see that the Bill is kept up to date by amendments which may become necessary and that we will not get long gaps between legislation when problems do arise which all parties would like to have solved.

I agree with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) that the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is a particularly important one but I also think it rightly falls under Finance. Nevertheless I should like to suggest to the Minister that the Hire Purchase Act is being abused on a large scale because to-day people borrow money from these financial institutions; they are not obliged to make a deposit with the result that they get the total amount from the financial institution. They buy a motor-car or radio or whatever it may be with that money and they repay it to the financial institution as though they had entered into a real hire-purchase contract.

Or they let their sureties pay.

Yes. The hon. member for Parktown is right when he says it is an ordinary case of borrowing and that the people do not enjoy the protection afforded under a hire-purchase contract. That is totally correct but they negotiate the loan and pay, as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has rightly indicated, interest at a much higher rate than that allowed under the Usury Act with the result that these institutions lend money in a fairly reckless fashion and the question is whether that does not create an artificial demand and whether that is not a big contributory factor to increasing inflation in South Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown. I too doubt whether it can be dealt with under this legislation but I do indeed think it is something which ought to enjoy the attention of the Minister and the Minister of Finance.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in connection with one point, namely, deposits. The deposit now becomes 10 per cent, not of the total price, but, as the hon. member for Parktown says, of the cash price. While we are faced with this problem of a possible increasing, creeping, demand inflation, the question arises whether we are not encouraging it. The hon. member for Parktown is right when he says that the deposit is actually being reduced; the deposit which has to be paid in cash is being reduced and that will be a greater incentive to people to buy more and more, more than they can afford. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not seriously consider raising the percentage of 10 per cent and raising it considerably. I do not think that would place any burden on the sellers. I also think they would welcome it in general but it would very definitely act as a brake particularly in the case of young people who are just starting to work, the young married couples who buy completely out of proportion to their income because hire purchase offers them the easiest terms, and now we still have the new system of loans by financial institutions. That causes those people to get into difficulties. They think it is extremely easy to pay off over a period of 24 or 26 months and they buy much more than they can actually afford and commit themselves to much more than they ought to; that creates an artificial demand, a greater demand than necessary and eventually that leads to inflation. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously whether he would not consider in the Committee Stage increasing the deposit and, if possible, increasing it considerably. The rest of the Bill is apparently welcomed by all and has our support.

I just want to thank hon. members of the House for the way in which they have received this Bill and for their remarks. In regard to the speeches made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and the hon. member for Vereeniging I merely want to reply by repeating what they themselves have already said and what the hon. member for Parktown has also already said, namely, that the question of borrowing money from one institution and buying a motor-car and paying cash for it with that borrowed money falls outside the ambit of this Bill. It is a matter, however, which can be dealt with by the Minister of Finance.

I am not so sure whether the 10 per cent deposit will make it so much easier to buy as stated by the hon. members for Parktown and Vereeniging. I think if they really went into the matter and made a calculation they would find that the 10 per cent provided for in the old Act amounted to about the same as the 11 per cent under the new Bill, so that it cannot in actual fact make any big difference. I think we should be very careful about increasing that 10 per cent without any further ado. Efforts are already made to circumvent the law and there are some people who steer clear of the Act for the very reason that they think the deposit of 10 per cent is too high in certain cases and it may well be that if we were to increase the 10 per cent to 15 per cent, for example, we would cause many commercial transactions which would have been negotiated under the Hire Purchase Act to be treated as ordinary open account transactions which are paid off in the ordinary way. This is therefore not a question to which an answer can be found so easily. I do, however, want to assure hon. members that we shall continually watch this Act and see how it operates and if necessary we shall amend it subsequently in the interest of our economy as a whole.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Cape Town Foreshore Act of 1950 provides for the establishment of a board with a view to controlling, managing and developing the Foreshore and disposing of the land. In passing I might perhaps just mention that I think if ever there has been a board which should be congratulated on the planning and the work it has done so far it is this board because in this connection they have given to Cape Town one of the most attractive towns or cities in the whole world. They have planned far ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the enabling provision which empowers the board to alienate or acquire land, namely Section 10 (1) (h) reads—

1. (i) to sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber any land forming part of the foreshore, or to exchange any such land for other land or to donate it for any purpose or to deal therewith in any other manner; and
2. (ii) to acquire by purchase, lease, exchange or otherwise any land or any interest in land or any buildings or other structure in as far as the acquisition thereof may be necessary for or incidental to the attainment of the objects of the board.

The words “with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine” were inserted in the 1950 Act with the object that the Minister would have a say in the general conditions of purchase and sale and that for the rest the board would deal with the particular transactions on its own. The Minister of Lands has thus from time to time approved of changes in the general conditions and empowered the members serving at the time, on his behalf, to approve the resolutions relating to land transactions. The legal advisers have now pointed out, however, that the law unfortunately makes no provision for such action and it has consequently become necessary to amend the law in this respect so that provision can be made for that. Because members of the board were in the past authorized to approve of resolutions on behalf of the Minister it is also necessary that the power we assumed was contained in the Act be inserted and made of retrospective effect to the date the law was introduced, namely, 1 August 1950. If we do not do so it would mean that all the previous transactions entered into by the members in terms of the board’s resolutions would not be valid.

At this stage on this side of the House we do not want to take exception to this Bill. There is one point that is worrying us, and I hope perhaps when the hon. Minister replies that he will be able to make the position quite clear in regard to the developments down at the Foreshore. The position is this that when the Foreshore Bill was first before Parliament, we on this side of the House stressed the necessity of keeping the final determination in regard to the disposal of land and rights in land down at the Foreshore in the hands of the Minister. This was for all practical purposes land that had been reclaimed by spending public moneys, it was land which was extremely valuable and likely to become more valuable as time went on, it was placed in such a situation in regard to the Harbour of Cape Town that it was in the forefront of all development and could be looked upon as the future gateway to South Africa, as one might call it. That was the position which was likely to arise in connection with the development of that foreshore land. We realized that with that went, step by step with the development, the increase in price of that land, that we were dealing with land which had at that time when it was first reclaimed, a very high value and as time went on would increase in value. We were therefore concerned that wherever alienation took place of the land or rights in land, the greatest care should be exercised that the interests of the State should be protected. Now, Mr. Speaker, the only way in which protection in the ordinary sense could be afforded by Parliament, outside of any provisions that were put in the Bill, was by having the usual situation whereby a Minister was answerable to Parliament for the work, the activities which he himself is responsible for, or which his department is responsible for. Here was the position that we emphasized this and in that respect we had certain assurances from the hon. Minister that that would be the position. We did it not only because it was state-owned land, but because it was very special state-owned land with a very high initial value and obviously an increasing value as the years went on.

In the Bill before us it appears, and I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will tell me if I am wrong and that he will be able to make the position quite clear, that under the present Bill the Minister is delegating authority to certain officials, and the position appears to be that there are officials in his department who are seconded for duty on the Foreshore Board, so that they become the servants of the Board, having been officials in the Department of Lands. They come now under the orders and direction of the members of the Foreshore Board in whatever decisions they may come to. To the officials who were in his department, now working for the Foreshore Board the Minister delegates his authority to make such decisions in regard to the disposal of land and the interest in land as they may deem to be right and proper under the circumstances as the result of the deliberations of the Foreshore Board. The provision is made retrospective, and the point has been made that the fact that it is being made retrospective seems to indicate that the Minister has not himself been exercising the authority which the original Act called upon him to exercise, but that some authority has already been exercised by somebody else who was in fact not vested with such authority. Possibly the law-advisers or whoever it may be, have had their attention drawn to the matter, and even if there is doubt and no certainty, it would appear that doubt has been cast upon the validity of some of the transactions. Hence the Bill is made retrospective to 1950. If the position is as we surmise it to be, that it has come to light that transactions were entered into which did not have the personal approval of the Minister as the Act demanded, then we on this side of the House are entitled to say that that is precisely what we hoped the Act would guard against; we wanted the Minister to take the responsibility. This is not a vast scheme consisting of innumerable small pieces of land; it is a scheme of immense value, and what we wanted was that the Minister should take responsibility. We are not saying that there is anything wrong in regard to the transfer of land down there, and we hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the position is with regard to the necessity for making this Bill retrospective. We go further and say that if in fact doubts have been cast on the validity of the transactions that have taken place, we would have preferred to see a Bill in a different form, i.e. a Bill in which was listed the transactions in respect of which doubt existed as to the validity, so that Parliament could see exactly what had happened. And the Minister cannot doubt that in that case, while we may have criticized—and we undoubtedly would have criticized him most severely, because that is precisely what we sought to guard against—nevertheless Parliament would have given him ex post facto authority to validate all those contracts that have been entered into. No one can conceive that at this stage, some 15 years later, Parliament is going to say: If you have done this without proper authority we will now not validate it. That is inconceivable. But we believe that we are entitled to know what the position is in regard to those transactions which apparently have been concluded on a basis which is not a legal basis. If that is so, as we surmise it is, then this Bill in our opinion is doing precisely what we hoped would not be done when the Act was first before Parliament, and that is now to take the authority away from the Minister because he delegates it to certain people, officials who are now in the employ of another body and not of his Department, and where the position may arise that if we want to call the Minister to account or question him we may be faced with the position that he will say: But you allowed me to delegate my authority to these officials; they have exercised their judgment to the best of their ability and therefore there is nothing I can do about it. That is the nub of the whole question. So I ask the Deputy Minister in his reply to tell us whether the primary responsibility still vests in the Minister, when once it comes to the transfer of the title of land on the Foreshore? Is there going to be no possible doubt whatever that if a question arises and Parliament wishes to question the Minister in regard to any transaction, Parliament will have that unfettered right to do so and to deal with the Minister’s decision and that it cannot be said in terms of this Bill by the Minister: I have abrogated my authority because I delegated it to other people. The Foreshore Board is a statutory body with its own powers and its officials have the power to do these things and therefore the Minister is functus officio. I want to make it clear that we on this side believe that this is far too valuable a national asset to have any doubt about the Minister’s responsibility. We believe the Minister alone should be responsible so that in terms of Parliamentary procedure we can deal with the Minister if necessary. Those are the matters which are worrying us, and therefore at the moment we cannot say whether we will accept this Bill or not; we are waiting for the Minister’s reply first.

I enter the debate just to stress the last point made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The whole issue is whether, in delegating these powers, the responsibility continues to rest with the Minister, who will have full responsibility to this House, as in the past, or whether in fact he is becoming divested of the powers he held and those powers are now vested in officials. It would appear that in the past Ministers do not appear to have taken very much personal interest in this matter at all. It would appear that the implementation of these powers has in fact been left in the hands of officials. One must assume that from the fact that this provision is being made retrospective to 1 August 1950. But perhaps the hon. the Minister will make it clear, and if it is not clear perhaps he will be prepared to insert or accept an amendment in the Committee Stage which will put the position beyond all doubt. This is a great asset and a grave responsibility rests on the Minister and on the House, and as the hon. member for South Coast has said, we would not be prepared to accept the position that the Minister is divested of his responsibility which he clearly had under the principal Act. I agree with the hon. member that in this clause it is not entirely clear although I think the clause is capable of being interpreted as meaning that the final responsibility still rests with the Minister. But that should be made clear in the Bill, because I cannot believe that it is the Minister’s intention that his responsibility in the matter should come to an end.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasing to know that hon. members opposite regard this area as being of such extreme importance. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) says it is the gateway to South Africa. It is also pleasing to note that hon. members do not want the power to go out of the hands of Parliament or of the Minister who has to account to Parliament. We welcome that and I think we can assure hon. members that they are unnecessarily harbouring fears. I again refer to the fact that provision was made in the original Act of 1950 in terms of which the Foreshore Board was empowered to do certain work and perform certain acts but each one subject to the approval of the Minister. The Minister determines beforehand, but he cannot deal with the transactions themselves. I want to give two examples.

As you know, Sir, the local City Council is considering erecting a civic centre there. The Minister first had to approve of the planning and the Foreshore Board had to submit that plan in its entirety to a Select Committee of this House, with the specific object of Parliament satisfying itself that the planning and the lay-out were right. But once the Minister has approved of the planning and the Select Committee has also approved of it it is the task of the Foreshore Board and the officials of the Department of Lands seconded to the Foreshore Board to negotiate the ordinary transactions, to do the ordinary work and to exercise supervision so that it is carried out in terms of the resolution and the conditions laid down by the Minister. We thought the old Act made provision for that but the legal advisers have now discovered that in the case of an ordinary transaction, when it has been approved that a company may erect a building of so many storeys, and the officials handle that transaction, there is no provision in the old Act making that a valid transaction. But as far as policy is concerned, the lay-out and the entire planning, the responsibility rests on the Minister and he can be called to account in this House. I can assure hon. members that the responsibility is not being shifted from the shoulders of the Minister to that of the officials. On the contrary, the only power which is being delegated to the officials is to carry out decisions in regard to policy after the Minister has approved of them.

Motion put and agreed to,

Bill read a second time.